


iiri'l: 



i ife'l-;- ill i 




■ i,i,<.i,'!;<. 



pi! lil iiij 

i ; i ii! ii) 












ifljllilii 



!i:i!;i 






\U 'UV'M , I I'M 



m m^ 



Wwm 

iiiilfc 

iiiiiiiiyii iiiiii'i:: 







^^. 






*^. 



* .0 r, ^ ^0- . O^ 



v^^ 




a\>' 



^• <p. 






ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE 

OF THE 

PENTATEUCH 



The Pentateuch 



ITS ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE 



AN EXAMINATION OF RECENT THEORIES 



EDWIN CONE BISSELL, D.D. 

Professor of the Hebrew Language and Literature in the Hartford Theological 

Seminary 




NEW YORK 

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 

1885 






^6 



Copyright, 1885, by 
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 



ELEOTROTYPED AND PRINTED BY 

STANLEY & USHER, 171 DEVONSHIRE STREET 

BOSTON, MASS. 



PREFACE 



WHILE pursuing Old Testament studies in the University at 
Leipsic, some years since, the writer became warmly interested 
in the subject of Pentateuch criticism, especially in connection 
with the more private societies (Gesellschaften) of Delitzsch and 
Guthe, where it was made the chief topic of discussion. Having 
once entered upon it, he found the questions it raised of too grave 
a nature to be relinquished without a serious effort at settlement. 
In fact, in view of the startling conclusions reached by an eminently 
respectable portion of German scholarship, he felt bound to give 
reasons, at least to himself, for his faith in an Old Testament 
revelation. He has accordingly had before him,- for the most part, 
the criticism in its German form. For his readers this method of 
treatment will have the advantage, that, while the works of such 
representative writers as Graf and Wellhausen are no less easily 
comprehensible in their leading principles and terms, they fully 
include, and are the evident source of, the most that has been said 
on that side of the question in England and America. 

A little more than one half of the present book has already 
appeared in print: the papers numbered i., iii., v., vii., viii., in the 
Bibliotheca Sacra during the years 1882-84; ^^nd iv. in the Journal 
of the Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis for July - Decem- 
ber, 1884. All such papers, however, have been carefully revised, 
and to some of them considerable additions been made. 

A work of this kind, if it is to be faithfully done, requires the con- 
scientious study of problems of the utmost intricacy and perplexity. 
The cursory reader, it is likely, will turn rapidly over the papers 
numbered iii.-vi., dealing mostly with the origin and inner relation- 
ship of Pentateuch laws. But to the more thoughtful reader and 
the student who is aware that, dfor a score of years, it has been 
in this thicket of the Hebrew legislation that some of the keenest 
intellects of the age have wrestled mightily over great biblical ques- 
tions, they will have a peculiar attraction. Every law of the Penta- 
teuch, aside from a few in Exodus having no important bearing 
on the subject in hand, has been brought under review in these 
four papers and conveniently tabulated. Excepting the articles of 
Hoffmann {Magazin f. d. Wissenschaft d. Judenthujns, 1879-80), 
to which he acknowledges himself much indebted, the author knows 



iv Preface. 

of no one work of the criticism making these laws so special a 
subject of examination. He knows of none whatever treating them 
so systematically and fully. It may not be amiss, moreover, to 
state, while holding himself alone responsible for results reached, 
that, through a series of years, the reasoning employed in this part 
of the book has been brought to the test of the freest discussion 
of the class-room. 

The good sense of the reader may be trusted not to draw two 
quite unwarrantable inferences from this book. First, because the 
author finds the so-called traditional view of the origin and structure 
of the Pentateuch much better supported than the one now most 
widely current in Germany, that therefore he beguiles himself with 
the illusion that there are no serious difficulties in it still remaining 
to be solved. And, second, because he is forced to reject as erro- 
neous, not only the general conclusions, but also many of the logical 
methods, of Wellhausen, and the class of critics he represents, that 
therefore he does not approve of biblical criticism when properly 
conducted. Next to adopting the theories of these critics, no 
higher mark of interest in such criticism could well be demanded 
than that one freely consent to enter upon its discussion with them 
on the plane, and with the terms, of their own choosing. 

For, strange as it may seem, the author is convinced that the 
thing of greatest influence in Pentateuch criticism, as now gen- 
erally conceived of, is but loosely connected with the Pentateuch 
— it is the point of view of the investigator (see p. 317). The 
l^hilosophy, even more than the science, is responsible for conclu- 
sions reached. But if there be great undiscovered secrets in the 
Bible, they must surely be one in essence with the secret of the 
earth and of man : a secret of the Lord which will be disclosed 
to them that fear Him. 

To find the truth and the will of God as expressed in it, to stay 
by it, love it, make it one's own, defend it to the death, — that is 
the common goal of religion and of all true science. If one man 
study the Bible religiously and another study it scientifically, still 
they are friends and allies unless the one's religion or the other's 
science is somehow at fault. Indeed, why should your religion 
exclude my science even here, or my science your religion, if 
both the science and the religion possess the teachableness and 
the sweet humility of the little child, to which was made the 
promise of the kingdom? 

Hartford, September 7, 1885. 



CONTENTS. 



I. 
Introductory i 

II. 
Historical Sketch of the Criticism 42 

III. 
The Proposed Analysis of the Law Tested in its Lead-* 
ING Principles 85 

IV. 
Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy 132 

V. 
Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy . . .164 

VI. 
Laws Peculiar to the "Priests' Code" 206 

VIL 

Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy 248 

VIII. 
The Law and the Prophets 290 

IX. 
The Law and the Historical Books 318 

X. 
The Law and the Psalms 362 

XI. 
Literature of the Pentateuch and the Related 

Criticism of the Old Testament 410 

XII. 

Indexes 476 

(i) Scripture Texts. 
(2) General Index. 



THE PENTATEUCH 

ITS ORIGIN AND STRUCTURE. 



I. 
INTRODUCTORY. 



If we discover among us in these days any disposi- 
tion to underrate or relatively disparage the Old Testa- 
ment, any tendency to neglect it in our theological 
schools, we must see, too, that Providence is signally 
interposing on its -behalf, and vindicating for it the 
highest claims to our attention. It is safe to say, 
bating from the statement whatever you please for any 
partiality one might have for favorite studies, that not 
a few of the problems with which the minds of thought- 
ful men are grappling to-day directly concern the 
Hebrew Scriptures. It is the Book of Genesis that 
we couple in our thinking with certain puzzling 
questions of geology and cosmography. 

It is the same book that serves as point of departure 
for the still mooted subject, when human history had 
its beginning, and how it began. It is to the Old 
Testament chiefly that the science of archaeology, 
opening up in our day so broad a field and awakening 
in its devotees so inspiring an ardor, comes to lay 
down its store of gathered facts and illustrations. 



2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnicture. 

From old Sepharvaim of the Books of Kings and Isaiah 
some of the latest treasures of monumental literature 
have been welcomed to our Western world. 

It is significant, too, that an eminent Assyriologist 
published, not long ago, as the result of special study 
in this department, a discussion of the question — more 
practical in its bearing than might appear — Where zvas 
Paradise f^ And it is not geography or history or 
chronology alone that these priceless records are 
teaching us. They are enriching our lexicons and 
correcting our grammars as well. It is an open secret 
that there are in the sacred text not a few words, 
Hebrew and Aramaic, whose meaning as yet has only 
been surmised, and that a single Psalm of less than 
forty verses has thirteen words that do not elsewhere 
occur in the Bible. Hence, it is a gladdening con- 
sideration that scholars are now in process of construct- 
ing from these same monuments of the past lexicon 
and grammar of a closely allied Shemitic tongue older, 
it is claimed, and more archaic in its forms, than any 
other known to man, and of such a character that the 
vocalization of every word has been exactly preserved. 

As if all this were not enough to quicken our flag- 
ging zeal, and teach us that the Hebrew Scriptures can 
never be divorced from the Greek Scriptures in our 
reverential study, the heaviest cannonading of biblical 
criticism is just now heard among these earliest records 
of our faith. Around the Gospels and Epistles there 
is, for the moment, a comparative lull in the conflict, 
while Moses and his great work are sharply challenged. 

A certain style of biblical criticism has always found 
here an attractive field — where the scantiness of 
objective and contemporaneous elements has seemed 

* Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies f 



Introductory. 3 

to invite and permit a corresponding subjective fulness 
and assurance. We are already accustomed, in 
connection with the Pentateuch, to such names as 
"Jehovist," "Elohist"and ''Younger Elohist," ''Deu- 
teronomist" and "Redactor," although they are found 
in no accredited list of sacred writers, and have hitherto 
failed to impress us with the simple grandeur of him 
who smote the rock at Horeb, and spoke face to face 
with God, "as a man speaketh to his friend." We 
have seen one scheme of the origin of Genesis and its 
companion books give place in quick succession to 
another. We have seen the documents of which it is 
assumed that they are composed, submitted, on the 
basis of other assumptions, to every sort of kaleido- 
scopic arrangement, until, as it should seem, the very 
limit of possible combinations had been reached. 

But it has been left to critics of our own day to 
propound a theory of the Pentateuch, and the course of 
Israelitish history,-which totally eclipses all that have 
preceded it. Were the goodly towns and cities of these 
Eastern States of America, with their, swarming mill- 
ions of people, with all their glory of material magnifi- 
cence and moral power, suddenly to be put down, in 
some way, conceivable or inconceivable, in the far-off 
valley of the Mississippi, leaving only scattered villages 
and hamlets where this surging tide of life had been 
before, it could not so affect our organic existence as 
a people, it could not so completely change the avenues 
of trade, revolutionize our social habits and methods of 
living and working, color and shape our national future, 
as would this latest scheme of criticism, were it to suc- 
ceed, revolutionize our old-time theories of the compo- 
sition and organic structure of the Old Testament, and 
the order, continuity, and contents of sacred history. 



The Pentateuch : Its Ori/^iit and Structure. 



^> 



It is nothing less than a tremendous critical cataclysm, 
an upheaval and a transformation that are continental 
in their reach and influence. 

The movement may be said to have taken its rise 
long since in the strictures of an Aben Ezra^ on the 
current method of treating the Pentateuch as solely the 
work of Moses. From him it came down through 
a Carlstadt,^ Spinoza,^ Astruc,* continually taking 
broader sweep and clearer outline to the time of 
Reuss,^ George,^ and Vatke/ of our present century. 
But until the appearance of Graf^ as its champion, 
somewhat less than a score of years ago, the theory had 
not really taken characteristic shape; had found no 
sufficient sponsor; had failed to awaken the serious 
attention of scholars to its claims ; in fact, had some- 
times met the smile of derision in the house of its 
friends. Under his skilful manipulations and masterly 
support, it took at once front rank among stirring 
questions ; indeed, it may be said, shot like a meteor 
into the sky of human observation. And though men 
looked to see it pass away again, like our meteors, it 
blazes still, a growing and portentous wonder to this 
very hour. 

And this is one of the strangest things about the 
theory : its sudden and wide success in the land of its 
birth. Professor Robertson Smith, in a recent work, 

^ For an account of his exegeiical works, see Ersch u. Gruber's Encyklop'ddie , I., s.v. 
He held that the Pentateuch was mainly the work of Moses, excepting only certain 
interpolations. 

"^ De Canonicis Scripturis, 1520. 

3 Tractatus Theologico-poltticus, 1670. 

* Conjectures sur les Memoires originaux, etc., 1753. 

^' Thesen (1833), Art. " Judenthum," in Ersch u. Gruber's Encyklop. His most 
recent work published is Geschichte d. Heiligen Schri/tcn d. A. T., 1881, 

*! Die Aelteren Judischen Feste, etc., 1835. 

' Die Religion d. A. T.,u 1835. 

» De Templo Silonensi, etc. (1855); Die geschichtlichen Bucher d. A. T. (1866); 
Art. in reply to Richm in Merx's ArcJiiv (1869). 



Introdtictory. 5 

declares that it represents "the growing conviction of 
an overwhelming weight of the most earnest and sober 
scholarship." 1 And while I should wish to limit such a 
statement to Germany and to change at least one of 
the adjectives applied to scholarship, there can be, I 
think, no doubt that a large majority of the younger 
theologians of Germany have really adopted the chief 
conclusions of Professors Kuenen^ and Wellhausen,^ 
and found in them a happy solution of many perplexing 
critical problems. Of this class, it is not enough to 
say, that the theory represents their convictions, or 
even dominates them. They flaunt it ; wear it as a 
decoration ; receive its principal supporters with clangor 
of trumpets, as though a sweeping victory had been 
won. 

Excepting works relating exclusively to the text, 
nearly everything of weight that has appeared in 
Germany in the department of the Old Testament for 
the last two years has treated of this theme. Heavy 
reviews have been started in defence of the new 
hypothesis, voluminous commentaries written, saturated 
with its spirit and methods ; and even some of the 
later Hebrew grammars show on their supposed impas- 
sive pages marks of the theological revolution. 

Does any one ask. But what is it all to us } What 
are the books we read, or the moral atmosphere we 
breathe, to us } Take the German books, and the 
translations of German books, out of our theological 
libraries, and you would be amazed at the emptiness of 
the shelves. Nor is it a matter which concerns theo- 

^ The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 216. 

2 His principal works have been published in England, The Religion of Israel, etc., 
3 vols., 1874; The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, ^^jj ', but numerous articles on the 
same subject have appeared from time to time in the Theolog. Tijdschrift (Leyden). 

3" Die Composition des Hexateuchs " in Jahrbucher fur Deutsche Theologie, 1876, 
pp. 392-450, £32-602; 1877, pp. 407-479; Geschichte Israels, i. 1878. 



The Pentateitch : Its Orio^iii and Striiciure. 



^> 



logians and ministers only. The theory has already 
crossed the Engish Channel bodily, and is finding 
adherents also, here and there, among the Christian 
churches of America. It has learned to utter itself 
in an attractive English style ; even found its way in 
a series of biblical Articles, how and why I know not, 
into the most prominent of English Encyclopaedias. 

One will still recall the vigorous protests made, some 
years ago, on the appearance of "Essays and Reviews." 
But a rationalism such as was reprobated in " Essays 
and Reviews " was mildness itself compared with that 
of an Article entitled " Israel," by Julius Wellhausen, 
in vol. xiii. of the Eficyclopcedia Britannica. It cuts 
completely loose from all traditional views of Israelitish 
and early sacred history. If its positions be true, it 
makes dreadful havoc not only of a considerable part 
of the ancient Scriptures, but of many of the choicest 
classics of the English church and the English tongue. 
And though it be balefully false, still, from the stand- 
point of our times a certain plausibility cannot be 
denied it ; and as one of the characteristic, culminating 
products of the lauded scientific method, it challenges 
our serious attention. 

The theory in its latest form, and stated in the very 
briefest terms, is this : ^ The Hexateuch, that is, the 
Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, is made up of three 
leading documents, — omitting here a minor distinction, 
— belonging to wholly different writers and widely 
different times. The Jehovist document,^ which is the 
oldest and briefest, begins with the middle of the fourth 
verse of the second chapter of Genesis, and while mainly 

1 Cf. Wellhausen 's edition of Bleak's Einleituiig in d. A lie Testament C1878), pp. 
177, 178. 

~ A distinction is made by critics between the "Jehovist " and the document ascribed to 
him, it being called a " Jahvist " document. 



Introductory. 7 

appearing as history, contains the legislation of the so- 
called Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx -xxiii. ; xxxiv.).^ 
The second document originally embraced only the 
legislative portions of Deuteronomy (xii.-xxvi.). It was 
at once occasion and product of the so-called " Deuter- 
onomic reforms" in the time of Josiah (621 B.C.), itself 
originating possibly in some collusion of priests and 
facile king. Later it was given its present historic 
setting by the '' Deuteronomist," who also worked over 
the document which had preceded it, making his hand 
especially prominent in the Book of Joshua : all, you 
will perceive, some centuries after the time of Moses. 
The most important work of all, named from the nature 
of its contents the " Code of the Priests," which begins 
the Bible, contains parts of Genesis and Exodus and the 
Levitical legislation of the middle books of the Penta- 
teuch, with its historic setting, did not see the light, it 
is said, till after the exile. True, it claims to be Mosaic, 
as does also Deuteronomy; but that is simply an histri- 
onic, not an historic, claim, — a representation made in 
the interest of its authority. In its narrative portions 
it is mainly a product of the fancy, although that nar- 
rative includes such matter as an account of the taber- 
nacle and its furniture ; and, as for the rest, it is the 
work of no one man, but of a school — a sort of precipi- 
tate from the literary activity of various priests and 
learned men. Still the Hexateuch is not complete. 
There is required another masterhand, — a masterhand, 
indeed, — a Redactor, who shall unite this "Code of the 
Priests " to the previous work of the Jehovist and the 
Deuteronomist, making the one supposed continuous 
history, by skilful trimming here and interpolating 
there, accord with the other continuous history, and the 

1 All references to the Old Testament are to the Hebrew text. 



8 The PentateiLch : Its Origin and Structure. 

laws of the different periods fit together, as best he can. 
He appears as these subjective personages usually do. 
He lives in the time and breathes the atmosphere of 
the last great work, the " Code of the Priests " ; and 
governed fully by its spirit he joins together in one 
grand whole these diverse products of a millenium, 
and deterred, as far as we know, by no scruples of 
conscience, leaves them under the countenance of a 
supposititious Sinaitic lawgiver, whose name has 
been sagaciously painted in, and whose personality 
has been impressed at every convenient opportunity. 

Now, from the point of view of this school of criticism, 
that is, accepting it as true that these men really did 
this work in the way described, it must be acknowledged 
that they did it extremely well. The Pentateuch as 
thus made up, and as a mere literary achievement, is an 
eminent success ; in fact, a very prodigy of genius, call 
it a romance, or call it what you will. But there are 
those who are unable to take this point of view ; and 
such will naturally look to see what is to be the outcome 
of this stupendous reconstruction of the records, pos- 
sibly, even before they test the question of its 
probability. 

They will scarcely be able to resist the conviction 
that, if this be a true representation of the case, then 
the jewel set in the crown of the Scriptures reflects a 
false lustre ; that we have in the Pentateuch simply a 
five-fold imposition, a nearly worthless composite of 
mingled cleverness and fraud. Real homogeneousness 
of texture there is none. Patriarchal history, excepting 
some floating myths, completely gone. Mosaic history, 
even, only represented in some scattered debris borne 
downward on the heaving waters of a beclouded tide. 
A sacred history of the Old Testament, properly 



Introductory. 9 

speaking, there can be none. It is reduced simply to an 
account, more or less credible, of the rise, development, 
and decline of a Jewish sect that reached its bloom after 
the exile. The principal contents of the Pentateuch 
have really nothing to do with the history of an Israel 
that sprang from the loins of Abraham, but solely with 
this post-exilian sect. 

Such a people as Israel there was ; but all you can 
learn of therri, to any purpose, must be learned from the 
Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and the prophets 
of the preexilian period. The great lawgiver of the old 
economy, and withal the grandest figure in primitive 
history, not Moses after all, but Ezra, the priest, who, 
with his straggling remnant, overlived the heavy blows 
of Chaldaea and Assyria ! The standing designation, 
"the Law and the Prophets," sanctioned and sanctified 
by the usage of Christ and his apostles, a misnomer ; 
it should rather be ''the Prophets and the Law," the 
real historic order being just the reverse of the order as 
it now appears. The sources of the Old Testament 
religion are in the literature of the early prophets. Pro- 
tevangelium there is none. The promise made to the 
seed of the woman, shining like another Bethlehem star 
over the birthplace of human sin, a Jehovistic conceit, 
meaning something or meaning nothing. 

There is as radical an overturning of biblical theology, 
you will see, as of biblical history as hitherto conceived. 
The idea of sacrifice, for instance, must be readjusted 
on a wholly different plan, and made to serve a totally 
different aim. It surely cannot take the widely com- 
prehensive range supposed, while ever narrowing in 
concentric circles to one central, all-controlling fact, as 
the writer to the Hebrews seems firmly to have believed. 
For this new scheme, as it leaves the history of redemp- 



lO The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

tion without an orderly beginning, so it leaves it with- 
out a sufficient end. It smites off the roots of the 
development, and is only consistent in looking for 
nothing among the branches. The one fitting consum- 
mation of the national life and religion of Israel, the 
one glorious conclusion of the Old Testament premises, 
openly declared to be not Jesus Christ, of the seed of 
David, of the tribe of Judah, whose day Abraham saw 
and was glad, but the political catastrophe which over- 
took the Jewish state seventy years after our era began, 
and the rabbinical schools which then sprang up.i 
Without extravagance of statement, such is the startling 
discovery which scholars professing to be governed by 
strictly scientific principles have made in our day ; such, 
in bare outline, is the scheme, with some of its more 
obvious results, which, with all seriousness, they offer 
for the acceptance of the Christian world, and of which 
Professor Robertson Smith says that it " represents an 
overwhelming weight of the most earnest and sober 
scholarship." Bear with me in stating a few natural 
reasons for supposing that a really sober and reverent 
scholarship will be extremely slow in accepting it. 

First, such a scholarship will find it impossible, I 
think, to adopt many of those principles of criticism 
which are its necessary condition. One of these prin- 
ciples or axioms, for example, is that persons of our 
day — I should perhaps say some persons of our day — 
have the ability to take up these ancient records, exist- 
ing quite apart, with no native contemporaneous matter 
to which there can be appeal, and solely on the basis of 
inward characteristics of style and the like decide 
with nice exactness upon their relative age.^ The 

1 See Wellhausen's Art. " Israel," as above, pp. 428, 429. 

- Murray {Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Psalms, New York, iS8o, p. 
132 f.) lias well characterized the uncertainty of conclusions drawn from such a source. 



Introductory. 1 1 

recurrence of certain names of God, in fact, is the 
hinge on which the question turns ; Jehovah marking 
the earliest document, and Elohim the latest. And 
yet, these hypothetical documents, as now found, would 
be wholly unintelligible if rent asunder, are both abso- 
lutely essential to the integrity and continuity of the 
history as we have it ; and there are other passages 
equally essential, where both the characteristic words 
must be admitted to be integral parts of the same docu- 
ment. Imagine the conclusions, were any modern 
composition, a sermon or a religious book, to be sub- 
jected to the same process of dissection. 

I know how widely this theory of documents prevails 
in Europe, even among scholars otherwise as far apart 
as Wellhausen and Delitzsch. But among German 
scholars there is beginning to show itself, in view of 
the tremendous conclusions which are drawn from it, 
a call for a serious review of the principles on which it 
rests.^ Those principles are acknowledged to be but 
partially applicable to the Pentateuch, and scholars are 
far enough from being agreed just how to apply them. 
They are not, and cannot be, applied to other parts 

" Taking up the Psalms of the Davidic Book, scholars have been accustomed first of all, 
by means of the dozen or so poems which, from internal setting or external allusion, have 
a consensus in their favor as of Davidic authorship, to fix what they call David's style of 
writing, and make this the standard for judging the other poems of the collection. Now 
style, though, on the whole, the surest purely literary test of authorship, is not a com- 
plete one, especially when dealing with ancient literature. I doubt, if the writings of the 
English Poet-Laureate should have the good fortune to survive two thousand years, and 
then be the sole remains of English letters from the Victorian period, whether any one 
will be inclined to refer the ' In Memoriam ' and ' The Princess ' to the same author. Per- 
haps they will say they have been placed together through the misapprehension of some 
later editor, while the ' Northern Farmer' will be rejected as spurious by all, and made the 
point of many an argument as to the decay of the English speech. In the study of any 
ancient literature, the argument from literary style can only be used with the greatest 
caution^ It has broken down in the literary study of the Hebrew Scriptures just at a point 
when most was expected of it — in the comparison of the earlier and later chapters of 
Isaiah." 

1 Marti, " Die Spuren der sogenannten Grundschrift des Hexateuchs" in Jahrb. fur 
Protestajit. Theologie (iS8o),p. 152. 



1 2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structtire. 

of Scripture, as Job and Ecclesiastes, the Psalms, 
Proverbs, and Nehemiah, where a use of these divine 
names scarcely less peculiar is found. Yet men build 
on these shifting sands as though they were founda- 
tions of imperishable stone ; and alas ! it is the temple 
of our common hope which they would build. 

Another canon of the newer criticism is that a law 
or ceremonial rite can only then be regarded as really 
in existence when it is appropriate to that age, and can 
be shown to have been enforced. On the basis of this 
canon it goes on to reason that as there is no sufficient 
evidence that the Pentateuchal laws were executed, — 
the Deuteronomic before the time of Josiah, or the 
Levitical before the exile, — therefore, they did not 
respectively come into being before these periods. 

Now, if the premise were to be admitted, so sweeping 
a conclusion would by no means follow. For though it 
might be shown that these laws were often but poorly 
enforced, it can never be shown that there was no effort 
to enforce them. But the premise is not, and will not 
be, admitted. Nothing, in fact, could be more fallacious. 
There is no one century of Christian history in which 
it cannot be demonstrated to be conspicuously false. ^ 
Had we for the first fourteen centuries of our era no 
other literature than the New Testament, what would 
be easier, on such a principle as this, than to establish 
conclusions the most absurd and misleading } Does 
the church of the fourteenth century adequately, even 
decently, represent that book? This great complex 
and corrupt organism of popes and prelates, it might be 
said, could never have come from a mould so simple, 
with a spirit so diverse ! Luther, consequently, was no 
mere translator ; he must have been originator, autlior ! 

^ Stebbins has well shown the absurdity of this canon in a note on p. 24 of his excellent 
work, A Study of the Pentateuch, 



Introductory. 1 3 

The New Testament is mainly from his pen. Under 
cover of a new rendering, as a matter of fact, he wrote 
the Gospels and many of the Epistles. Nothing else 
could have furnished the basis for a reformation so rad- 
ical and far-reaching as that of his day.^ It was Jesus 
who said : '' Did not Moses give you the law, and yet 
none of you doeth the law } " Make the life of a 
people the test to determine the nature of the laws of 
the people, and that for this people whose neck was 
iron and forehead brass! It is quite true that even 
good men, like Samuel, sometimes turned aside from 
the letter of their code. But he is not the only good 
man who has done it. 

A third fundamental canon of the latest criticism, 
really held and acted upon by its leading representatives, 
and not infrequently confessed, is that a supernatural 
revelation, prophecy, and miracle are incredible. That 
is, it dogmatically assumes the impossibility of that 
which as believers in Christ we must make an unaltera- 
ble premise in all our reasoning. Nothing else will 
explain either the activity of this criticism or the form 
it everywhere assumes. This, indeed, is the principal 
ground of objection to a Mosaic Torah. Moses, it is 
said, on the traditional view, would be a greater miracle 
than Jesus, who simply came in the fulness of time ; for 
he came wholly out of time and out of place. Hence, 
there must be such a readjustment of the records as shall 
put Moses in his place, and show a gradual development 
of the history and laws. One may not begin with 
Genesis, and then follow up with the Levitical code, 
but with the Judges. The real sources of Israelitish 
history were there. 

A straight line of development is demanded, con- 

^ So essentially Bredenkamp, Gesetz u. Propheten, p. 5. 



14 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

trary to the actual order of historic development, which 
is not in straight lines. A straight line of development 
is demanded : it cannot be otherwise, it is said, than 
that Israel first built a house, and not till afterward 
a church.^ 

But, if the history of Israel teaches anything, it 
teaches that his house and church were one. There is 
not the slightest documentary evidence that in concep- 
tion or practice any such dualism ever existed among 
them. In fact, we take direct issue with this method 
of reasoning. We do not find ourselves under any 
such logical compulsion to reconstruct the Pentateuch. 
We see no such imperative need for denying super- 
naturalism in the Bible, but quite the contrary. The 
logic here used against it in the Old Testament is as 
futile when applied to the New as feathered arrows 
against a rampart of stone. Admitting the miracle of 
Jesus, the miracle of Moses is no anachronism. As in 
the Christian religion, so in that from which it sprang, 
we might expect to find the essential peculiarities of it 
in its original sources, might be even surprised did we 
not see it exhibiting itself in its greatest purity and 
power at the outset of its course. 

But there must be no appeal to the New Testament 
— that is another principle hotly insisted on. It is 
unscientific. *' We must either cast aside as worthless," 
says Kuenen, " our dearly bought scientific method, or 
must forever cease to acknowledge the authority of the 
New Testament in the domain of the exegesis of the 
Old." 2 The New Testament, however, is at least an 
equal sharer in the glory or the dishonor of the Book ! 
You cannot lay the hand of violence on any funda- 
mental truth of the elder dispensation, but the shrine 

1 Wellhausen, Geschichte, p. 267. 2 xhe Prophets and Prophecy in Israel, p. 487. 



Intro dttctory. 1 5 

of the later will tremble m every part ! Still the 
Master and his apostles must not be heard as witnesses ! 
We treat our criminals with more respect. 

Has the fact that, if the New Testament were 
allowed to utter itself in the matter, its utterances 
would be final, nothing to do with such a canon ? The 
Master says that Moses, about whom this conflict 
chiefly centres, wrote of him. Shall that, and similar 
things, have no infinitesimal weight in a discussion of 
the question, what Moses wrote, or whether he wrote 
at all } The Epistle to the Hebrews accepts the 
doctrine of sacrifice in its Levitical form as of Mosaic 
origin — the very point in debate. Is it therefore to be 
silenced, and forever silenced, for the church of Christ, 
as it inevitably must be if this theory prevail } How- 
ever this may be, we should regard any mere critical 
method too dearly bought at such a price. With an 
early Christian writer, we would rather choose to say : 
" To me Jesus Christ is the sum of all records ; my 
inviolable records are his cross and death and resurrec- 
tion and the faith through him." ^ 

Moreover, the principles of this type of criti- 
cism allow one to impute to Old Testament writers 
motives and practices which totally unfit them to be the 
medium of spiritual instruction. The Scriptures, it is 
true, have a human side ; but it has been left to these 
critics to charge upon not a few of its writers conscious 
trickery and imposition. And that they fully believe 
their own charge is sufficiently evinced by the treat- 
ment they themselves accord to the sacred writers. 
They seem to think it needful to meet this supposed 
finesse not only with exposure, but with an irreverence, 
a triviality, a spirit of depreciation, which show that a 

1 Ignat., ad. PhiladeL, viii. 



1 6 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

feeling of contempt has overcome the natural sense of 
sorrow and shame which such a fact might be expected 
to produce. Wellhausen has been at special pains to 
point out that whatever in the sacred history has a 
decidedly religious coloring — " pious " utterances, 
" unctious speeches, to break the monotony," is his 
fleer at them ^ — is pure hypocrisy, the work of an 
artist, and not the real experience of living men who 
spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 

I have already alluded to some of the fraudulent 
practices of which the various scriptural writers, with no 
exception of age, have been accused. Deuteronomy, a 
fabrication of the seventh century ; a clever stratagem 
to secure respect for legal enactments from a reluctant 
people. The Book of Joshua, for the most part, a simi- 
lar forgery to bolster up the first. The Levitical laws, 
with their framework of history, reaching from the 
creation of the world, through the exodus, to the prom- 
ised land, essentially a fraud of the time of the exile. 
The Books of Chronicles, written of design to sustain 
this spurious document, and in all their history, which 
runs parallel to that of the Books of Samuel and the 
Kings, adroitly keeping up the mystification. The 
Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings themselves, where, 
if anywhere, we might expect genuine history, widely 
interpolated and retouched in the interests of this same 
counterfeit of the exilian priests. Is this criticism, or 
is it caricature } Is it interpreting history, or is it 
manufacturing history t Our Christian instincts revolt 
at such a profanation. How much is actually left us that 
will reward the pains of investigation } Where can we 
set our feet on really solid ground .-* In a perverse 

1 See Geschichte, pp. 340, 347, and p. 309: "Was der israelitischen Geschichte 
vorzugsweise den Namen der heiligen Geschichte eingetragen hat, beruht lumeist auf 
nachtraglicher Uebermalung des ursprlinglichen Bildes." 



Introductory. t^ 

effort to show that the history must have taken a 
certain course, the history itself has been sacrificed. 
The theory has been adjusted, but at the expense of 
the facts. In an effort to reconstruct an ancient temple, 
according to the rules of modern taste, a beginning has 
been made by defacing and crushing its precious 
material, smiting a cruel pathway through arches, and 
pillars, and statues of renown, until, at last, it is found 
that there is too little left to build so much as a credit- 
able house, much less a shrine for our sweetest 
memories and most sacred hopes. 

It is safe to predict from the very start where those 
adopting such canons of criticism are sure to come out. 
It is a foregone conclusion. A truly serious and rever- 
ent scholarship can neither accept the canons nor enter 
into serious argument with those who do. For a full 
hundred years critics have been discussing the text of 
Homer on the Wolfian .basis, and have as yet failed to 
achieve among themselves an agreement even in lead- 
ing points.^ But how poor an arena are the pages of 
Homer for an active subjectivity to disport itself 
compared with the Pentateuch ! Better far for us to 
take the morsel that is left after the paring and 
trimming are over, and try to nourish our spiritual 
being on it, in our generation, than to enter, with terms 
like these, on a wrangle at once so wearisome and so 
profitless. 

I by no means intend to say that every individual 
who belongs to this class of critics would take each one 
of these principles in the full sense here explained. 
But they are thoroughly characteristic of the class. 
Professor Robertson Smith, it is likely, would disclaim 
being governed by some of them. But Professor 

1 Cf. Zock\cT in Zeiisckrzyi/ilr ki'rcklz'c/ie IFisseusc/tayi, etc. (1882), p. 49. 



1 8 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Smith's acknowledged masters would not disclaim 
them. And sooner or later, under the silken glove of 
the mild-mannered Scotch professor, one will surely 
feel the mailed hand of a Paul de Lagarde or a Julius 
Wellhausen. 

I remark, in the second place, that it will be just as 
impossible for a sober and candid Christian scholarship 
to accept the style of interpretation needful to defend 
successfully the theories of this type of criticism. It is 
necessary for it, placing Deuteronomy in the time of 
Josiah, and the Levitical legislation a couple of centuries 
later, to show that no slightest trace of them appears 
earlier than these respective periods. A single undis- 
puted passage in an earlier book necessarily presuppos- 
ing their existence is quite enough to render the 
argument, which is mainly an argument from silence, 
null and void. And is it needful to say to any student 
of the Hebrew Scriptures that, even allowing the 
widest scope for the convenient, but always to be sus- 
pected, theory of interpolations and omissions, it is here 
confronted with an impossible task } Culling out 
individual parts, and imputing them to later hands, 
however extended the process, can never destroy the 
coloring and spirit of the witnessing records : the 
records themselves must first be annihilated. I shall 
select under this head here but a few facts by way of 
example. 

Look first at the Deuteronomic legislation, making 
a definite and repeated claim to being Mosaic, and 
which our critics hold for a product of king Josiah's 
time. It has laws not one, but "many, which would be 
utterly senseless as productions of this later period. 
The order, for instance, is given to Israel, after their 
settlement in Canaan to wipe out Amalek, and not to 



Introductory. 19 

forget it ; when in the time of Josiah Amalek had 
already long since wholly disappeared from history.^ 
They are also commanded to destroy the Canaanites, 
who had then ceased to be of any importance what- 
ever.2 A law is made against Amnion and Moab, and 
in favor of Edom, which exactly reverses the real rela- 
tions of these peoples to Israel in the time of Josiah.^ 
Directions are given for choosing a king, it being 
assumed that they have none, several hundred years 
after the anointing of Saul."^ An organization of the 
Israelitish army is presupposed wholly out of place in 
the days of kingly authority.^ Mourning customs are 
forbidden, clearly allowed and practised in the time of 
Josiah and later ; which, whatever else it may prove, is 
entirely inconsistent with the theory that Deuteronomy 
originated in his day.^ To say of these laws that they 
are a part of the fictitious coloring given by the writer 
to his work that it might seem Mosaic is to make of 
the deception a monstrosity, to no one more embarrass- 
ing than to the critics themselves. 

Then consider the connection between the Deutero- 
nomic and the Levitical legislation. It is assumed by 
the criticism that the former chronologically precedes. 
It will be shown, on the contrary, by arguments that no 
candid mind will be likely to resist, that the order of 
the Bible is the actual, chronological order ; that Deu- 
teronomy is what it purports to be, a repetition and 
modification, under other circumstances, of older laws, 
at the hands of him who himself had been their medium 
at first, and who therefore had the right to modify, as 
well as repeat, them. 

^Deut. XXV. 17-19; cf. I Sam. xiv. 48; xv. 2 fif.; xxvii. 8; xxx. i f.; i Chron. iv. 43. 
2Deut. XX. 16-18. 

^Deut. xxiii. 3, 4, 7, 8; cf. Jer. xlvlii. 47; xlix. 6, 17, 18; Ps. cxxxvii. 7; Joel ili. 19; 
Obad. ; Isa. Ixiii. 1-6. *Deut. xvii. 14-20. ^ Deut. xx. 9. 

"Deut. xiv. I, 2; cf. Jer. vii. 29; xvi. 6; xli. 5. ~ 



20 TJie Pentatctich : Its Origin and Structure. 

It is said, for example, in Deuteronomy of the 
Levites, that they are to have no inheritance among 
their brethren, that the Lord is their inheritance, as he 
had said unto them. Where had this been said ? It is 
a direct citation of a part of the Elohistic Torah, falsely 
dated in the time of the exile.^ Elsewhere, the people 
are charged in their treatment of the leprosy to observe 
implicitly, and do all that the Levitical priests should 
teach them, as he had commanded them. Where was 
this commanded ? To the extent of two whole chapters 
in the Levitical legislation, and nowhere else.^ In the 
law relating to animals clean and unclean, there is a 
direct dependence of the Deuteronomic on the Leviti- 
cal form, an obvious textual corruption serving to make 
assurance doubly sure.^ 

In a law relating to sacrifice found in Deuteronomy, 
the Israelites are prohibited from sacrificing anywhere 
else than at the central sanctuary. But with the prohi- 
bition a concession is joined, specifically introduced as 
a concession, that they may slaughter animals for pri- 
vate use at home. The concession points unequivo- 
cally back to the Levitical form of the law, which had 
prohibited the killing of animals at all, as might have 
been expected in the wilderness, except at the central 
sanctuary.* In the Levitical legislation provision had 
been made for six cities of refuge in Canaan ; in Deu- 
teronomy we find Moses selecting three of them on the 
east of Jordan, and strictly enjoining the establishing 

^xviii. 2; cf. Num. xviii. 20, 23, and Delltzsch in Zeitschri/t fur kirchliche Wissen- 
schaft, etc. (r88o), p. 448. Professor Delitzsch has a series of Articles on the Criticism of 
the Pentateuch, extending through all the numbers of this Zcitschrift for 1880, whose value 
cannot well be overestimated. The same subject is also resumed by him in this periodical 
for the year 1882. 

^Deut. xxiv. 8, 9; cf. Lev. xiii., xiv. 

^Deut. xiv. 3-20; cf. Lev. xi. 2-19, and Dillmann in his recent Comment.iry on Exodus 
and Leviticus (in Kiirzgcfnsstes exegct. Ilnfuihuch'). 

*Deut. xii. 6-16; cf. Lev. xvii. 1-9. 



Introductory. 2 1 

of the other three after the conquest of the land.^ In 
the Levitical code, absurdly imputed to Ezra and his 
colaborers, circumcision is made the seal of the Abra- 
hamic covenant. It is a remarkable fact that already 
in the Book of Deuteronomy circumcision has passed 
over from the natural use to a figurative sense, the 
people being called to circumcision of heart.^ In Deu- 
teronomy, moreover, there are a number of explicit 
references to the historical portions of this Levitical 
document. I say references to this, simply because we 
are shut up to such a conclusion. They are references 
to something. They correspond in matter and in minute 
distinctions of form to it. And there is absolutely 
nothing else that we know of to which they could refer.^ 
■ And now, how is such a line of argument met by our 
critics "l Sometimes with evasions ; sometimes with 
depreciation, or a denial of pertinency. When this is 
impossible, there is a resort to the elastic theory of in- 
terpolations. Deuteronomy has been manipulated in 
the interests of the later documents ; or, there are 
omissions in the original Jahvist document which, if 
extant, would be found to have furnished the foundation 
on which Deuteronomy built. I have marked, in fact, 
a number of instances where, to avoid the conclusion to 
them impossible, that Deuteronomy depends on other 
parts of the Pentateuch, which they assign to the exile, 
some of the brightest of these men have taken refuge 
in this asylum for imbeciles, an hypothesis of omissions 
in a document of which they can know literally nothing 
but what is written in the Bible.^ Could there, indeed, 

^Deut. iv. 41; xix. 1-13; cf. Num. xxxv. 

2Deut. X. 16; XXX. 6, as in Jer. iv. 4; ix. 26. 

^Deut. X. 22; cf. Gen. xlvi. 27; Deut. i. 23; cf. Num. xiii, 3 fif. ; Dent. x. i, 2; cf. Ex. 
xxxiv. I. 

* See last citation of passages, and with Gen. xxxiv. 15, cf. Gen. xvii. 10 (Wellhausen, 
Geschichte, p. 364 f.). 



22 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncture. 

be an audacity more astounding ? They scout the idea 
of supernaturalism and miracle in the scriptures, and yet 
arrogate to themselves the very attributes of Deity ! 

Sidney Smith speaks of some one whose forte was 
science, but whose foible was omniscience. Now, what- 
ever the forte of our critics may be, they certainly have 
a very decided foible for omniscience. They claim to 
be able not only to tell us exactly, and by the score, 
where passages have been inserted in the text, and the 
hand that did it, but, something inconceivable to any 
one but God alone, where they have been left out. And 
this to us is the vital point of the matter : they must be 
able to know, and to tell us, as much, as this, or their 
theory is worthless for the conclusions they seek to 
establish. 

If we move downward from the Deuteronomic period, 
we shall find it just as hard to make our way along the 
track of Israelitish history without the postulate of its 
code, and the elder one on which it clearly rests. The 
temple of Solomon in its furnishing, its peculiar rites of 
dedication, its swarming priests and Levites, who with- 
out instruction know each his place and duty, is nothing 
less than a glaring anomaly in history, if this hypothesis 
be true. And why the scathing denunciations of Jero- 
boam, the separatist, who, with his golden calves at Dan 
and Bethel sought to breed political discord among the 
people by pandering to an idolatrous taste .'* Why is he 
reproved for devising "of his own heart " a festival on 
the eighth month, except that he did it in contravention 
and defiance of one already legally, that is Levitically, 
ordered for the seventh 1 Why did his memory haunt, 
like an evil spectre, all the subsequent history of Israel 
to the very end, so that the writer of the Books of Kings 
can utter no heavier censure over its wickedest rulers 
than that they walked in the steps of Jeroboam, the son 



Introductory. 23 

of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin ? There can be but 
one answer. There was an acknowledged law against 
which he was a conspicuous and arrant offender. 

The existence of such a law is not only proved by a 
certain line of conduct which is everywhere branded as 
transgression, but also by numerous efforts at reform in 
the express direction of this code. Jehoash was a re- 
former, and Amaziah, and Azariah, and above all Heze- 
kiah, the very last of whom lived a full hundred years 
before our critics' date of Deuteronomy. They have a 
single aim. They face one way, and that, the way of 
the Mosaic laws. Their fault was never one of direction, 
but solely of lack of force and thoroughness. Again 
and again are they rebuked for stopping short of the 
goal ; altars were still left to blaze for Baal as well as 
God. 

Josiah himself, claimed as the first great reformer 
under Deuteronomic inspiration, is simply one in a loyal 
line that reaches back to Samuel and the heroic judges 
who preceded himT He had no suspicion that he was 
undertaking what was new. It was over a broken and 
disregarded law, which ought to have been supreme in 
Israel, that he rent his clothes, humbled himself, and 
wept in sorrow and penitence. 

Our critics have, also, the wonder of the Psalter to 
explain, which certainly had its beginning considerably 
before the sixth century, and yet echoes and reechoes 
in every part the Mosaic law. One of its psalms recog- 
nizes every form of sacrifice known to the ritual of 
Leviticus, save one. In its fivefold division it is directly 
based on the Pentateuch. Its proem is a psalm describ- 
ing the blessedness of him whose delight is in the law 
of the Lord; and elsewhere, as we believe through the 
lips of David himself, it breaks forth into ecstatic praise 



24 The Pentateuch : Its Oris;in and Structui'e. 



of it : " The law of the Lord is perfect converting the 
soul." "The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing 
the heart." 

If a single one of the earlier psalms can be shown to 
rest upon the Torah rather than on the teachings of the 
prophets, that of itself is enough to overthrow the main 
positions of our critics. And a great deal more than 
this is possible. 

Take an example from them, the eighth, which by 
almost universal consent is ascribed to David. Note 
carefully the line of thought along which it moves. It 
is a night scene. The gaze of the shepherd and poet is 
fixed on the spangled skies: "When I consider thy 
heavens, the work of thy fingers ; moon and stars which 
thou hast ordained ; What is man, that thou art mindful 
of him .'' and the son of man that thou visitest him } 
For thou didst make him a little lower than God, and 
crownedst him with glory and honor. Thou madest 
him to have dominion over the works of thy hands." 
What amazing language is this ! How does David know 
these things } How does he, in the wildest flights of 
fancy, dare to say that man has been made but a little 
lower than God .? He had gratefully read it, where we 
may still read it to-day, in the opening chapter of the 
Bible, whose thought not only he appropriates, but the 
precise order of it. Yet these very words of Genesis 
are an inseparable part of the document assigned by our 
critics to the period of the exile, six hundred years after 
the reign of David. 

And aside from the individual psalms, they must 
tell us how the collection came to reach in Israel 
that high plane of spiritual feeling and utterance, 
which has never yet been passed, and that amidst 
the densest moral darkness of neighboring peoples. 



Introductory. 25 

There is but one Psalter for the whole Bible, And 
it has proved sufficient. Its buttresses are deep and 
strong enough to bear up a structure that was twenty 
centuries building; its invisible arch lofty enough 
to cover the grandest architectures of prophetic vision 
and of Christian hope. On any principle of develop- 
ment, let them inform us, if the Mosaic laws and 
institutions were not behind it, what was behind it, to 
push it upward, before the period of the exile, and to 
some extent before the acme of prophetical influence 
had been reached, to such a pitch of moral grandeur, to 
such hitherto unknown ideas of God and m.an's relations 
to him ? 

What long stretches of time, what mighty moral 
forces, what terrible wrestlings of the human spirit 
must have gone before that story of temptation and 
blessed escape found in the seventy-third Psalm ! 
What an experience of precious rest in God, whose 
sweet depth no plummet has since fully sounded, is 
found in Psalm twenty-third ! How striking, and how 
Christian withal, the solution of the mystery of individ- 
ual immortality conveyed in the words : " Whom have 
I in heaven but Thee / . . . My flesh and my heart 
faileth : God is the strength of my heart and my portion 
forever." First a house, then a church, is the maxim 
of our critics. But surely here is an altar and holiest 
worship, souls who pant after God. Here are songs in 
every key, from the tumultuous depths to serenest 
heights, and hearts to feel them and voices to sing 
them. And here is he who dwelleth not in temples 
made with hands ; who inhabiteth the praises of Israel ; 
and dwelleth with him that is of a contrite heart and 
who trembleth at his word. 

Then, further, those who are seeking to make every- 



26 TJie PentateiLcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

thing clear on the principle of natural development 
have not only the anomaly of reforming kings without 
a standard of reform and the furnished temple of the 
Psalter without priesthood or ritual to explain, but also 
the attitude and work of the preexilian prophets. 
They, it is claimed, were the real sources of Israelitish 
history and religion. Who and what were their 
sources t Moses was too great, too developed a char- 
acter to have arisen in the period of the exodus ! What 
a soil, then, the period of the judges for such a growth 
as that of Samuel ! Whence came Elijah the Tishbite ? 
and Obadiah and Joel, Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and 
Micah } Unlike in natural gifts and training, they 
were yet impelled by one spirit ; uttered really but one 
message. Prophets of two fiercely rival kingdoms, 
they never waver in their loyalty to one invariable 
standard and to one King.^ It was Amos of Judah 
who, while tending his flocks in Tekoa, heard the call 
of God, and hurried to confront the haughty king of 
Israel and his false priests at Bethel. It was Elijah of 
Israel who won from the people of Judah such love and 
reverence that, to this day, in certain ceremonies, 
their descendants still set for him a chair as an invisi- 
ble guest. 2 

What gave to these men this unity of spirit, this fiery 
zeal, this mysterious power over kings and people } 
What was it that took away all sense of fear in the 
discharge of duty } Whence that idea of solemn, 
imperative duty } It v/as the Mosaic law given 
amidst the awful sanctions of Mount Sinai, that was at 
once their bond and inspiration ; that ruled them and 
heartened them. They severally make direct and 

J The order of the Minor Prophets is particularly to be noted, a prophet of Israel 
being joined with one of Judah, with obvious intent. 

- Cf. Dclitzsch, OldTcst. History of Redemption, p. no. 



Introductory. 27 

unmistakable allusions to it, or its essential historic 
setting.! ^11 their utterances are based on such a 
presupposition. They recognize a covenant made with 
God through Mosaic mediation. That covenant had 
not been kept. Their whole activity proclaims a per- 
verse trend of thought and conduct against which they 
relentlessly fight, one and all. Founders of a religion 
they were not, and could not be, men like these, without 
a sign of collusion ; but mighty reformers they were, 
who set their faces like a flint against a prevailing 
degeneracy and lapse of the people whom God had 
chosen for his own.^ 

Caroline Fox, in her Memories, tells of a Quaker of 
literary turn who would not undertake a translation of 
the Iliad lest he should catch the martial spirit of its 
heroes. Our critics, so far from catching the spirit of the 
Hebrew prophets, have not seemed able even to under- 
stand their teaching in its distinguishing features. To 
overlook the higher truth in their burning metaphors 
and startling paradoxes, and charge them with hostility 
to the idea of sacrifice because they denounce an 
unworthy dependence on altar gifts as an opics operattmi, 
and properly brand the sacrifices of the wicked as an 
abomination,^ is not only to bring them into conflict 
with themselves,'^ but also with the whole current of 

1 Amos ii, lo; Hos. xii. 13; Mic. vi. 4; vii. .15. 

2Cf. Watson, The Law and the Prophets, p. 79: " If you deprive the prophets of the 
one book on which their teaching could be founded, how do you account for the prophets 
and their teaching? You frame a theory which accounts for the composition of the 
Pentateuch on naturalistic principles; but in so doing you cut the ground from under the 
prophets' feet. The prophets had to learn before they could teach; what was their text- 
book? Not the law; it had to be fabricated. Not the history (at least with the earlier 
prophets), for it had yet to be written in the true spirit. By whom then were the 
prophets taught? By the direct inspiration of God apart from all human means? That 
is the only answer the modern critics have left for themselves, an answer which. they 
certainly will not give." 

3 Cf. Prov. xxi. 27. 

* Cf. Green, Moses and the Prophets, p. 147 f. ; Watts, The Newer Criticism, p. 83 ff 



28 The Pentateuch : Its Ovizin and Structure. 



biblical teaching, from the lesson of those first offerings 
of Cain and Abel to the words of Him who made love 
to be more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacri- 
fices (Mark xii. 33). 

Still further, these critics, who make the Mosaic law 
essentially a product of the post-exilan Judaism, have 
to explain what has been noted as a conspicuous pecu- 
liarity of the Hebrew people as of no other people, 
stamped on their whole history from the beginning, 
through this very period, too, when if there was no law 
there could be no transgression : a peculiarly active 
conscience, and that an evil conscience ; '' a feeling of 
guilt ; a feeling that a lofty task had been assigned 
them, which they neither can nor will perform ; a 
feeling of contrariety between knowledge and will, so 
that sins are heaped on sins.''^ What could have so 
awakened this feeling in them of all the ancient 
peoples that we know, so that it must be recognized 
as one of the dominant factors of their history, before 
the exile as after the exile ? It was the coming in of 
the law, to state it as Paul does in Romans, that made 
the transgression abound, that kept the conscience, 
even though an evil conscience, alert, an unsilenced 
oracle of power and dread within, and brought ever 
heavier burdens of guilt upon them, till they should 
come at last to Him who is the end of the law for 
righteousness to every one that believeth. 

Now these are things which we find in the books 
themselves, an inseparable and undeniable part of the 
records ; and they militate decisively against the theory 
we have been considering. If the theory be true, they 
ought not to be there, and could not be there. But 
there they are. No hypothesis of interpolations or 

1 So De Weltc in Stud, it, Kritikoi (1833), P- ioo.V 



Introductory. 29 

omissions can affect the most of them any more than, 
it would the history written in stone, of a Sargon or a 
Sennacherib. They are wholly beyond the critic's art. 
It is a spirit that breathes and moves outside the 
letter; that utters itself, indeed, in words, but yet is 
something more than words, and will still live on, con- 
fuse and mutilate the letter as you will. It is a myste- 
rious coloring reaching to deepest depths, and can no 
more be blotted out than its radiant blue can be wiped 
from the summer's sky. 

Finally, it is safe to say that a really sober Christian 
scholarship will never abandon a position against which 
so little valid objection can be urged for one involving 
the extraordinary inconsistencies of that before us. I 
do not deny that there will be difficulties with any 
theory which would account for the origin and struc- 
ture of a work of the character of this, antedating all 
other native records. But it is neither reasonable nor 
in any true sense scientific, if there be a feasible way 
of harmonizing the documents as they are, to reject 
the solemn and oft-repeated testimony which they give 
of themselves, sustained as it is by all the historical 
evidence accessible to us, Jewish and Christian, to take 
refuge in an hypothetical scheme such as we have been 
considering. 

I have already pointed out a few of the sacred 
objects, supposably established truths, some of them, 
as it seems to me, fundamental to the Christian faith, 
as well as whole books of Scripture, that it has been 
found needful to offer up to this imperious theory. 
The list is not yet exhausted. The Book of Joel, until 
of late, has been held by the almost unanimous con- 
sent of scholars to be among the very oldest of the 
prophets. A critic now among the adherents of Well- 



30 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

hausen wrote a work as late as 1875 ^ in defence of this 
position. But Joel recognizes no other place of wor- 
ship than Jerusalem ; lays great stress on sacrifices, 
regarding it as something to be bewailed when they are 
hindered ; names the people by the so-called Elohistic 
term, QdJidl, congregation. Hence, Joel can be no pre- 
exilian prophet. He must move down, and still further 
down, and take his place among the very last and 
lowest. 2 It is the exigency of the theory, mind you, 
that makes this requirement, nothing else. It is the 
dilemma into which they would be brought who say 
that no traces of this " Code of the Priests " are discov- 
erable before the exile, if this mighty prophet of Judah 
were allowed to stand in his place and give his testi- 
mony. 

A similar exigency accounts for the misplacing of 
another quite as important portion of Scripture — the 
patriarchal history and its sequel in Exodus and other 
books. It is supposed to belong, largely, as I have 
said, to this "Code of the Priests" made up in the 
exile. But there was a time when our critics took 
another view. They dated only the Levitical code of 
laws so late. But it was shown them, and they were 
compelled at the edge of the sword to yield the point, 
that, unless all critical principles hitherto acknowledged 
as valid were abandoned, the history must go with the 
code. They were an inseparable part of the same 
Elohistic document.^ And so, humbly, but as we may 

^Smend, Moses apud Prophetas, Halis. Cf. also his " Ueber die von den Propheten 
desachten Jahrhunderts vorausgesetzte Entwickelungsstufe der israelii. Religion " in Stud, 
u. Kritiken for 1876. In his Commentary, Der Prophet Ezcchiel (i860), however, he 
goes wholly over to the theory of Wellhausen. 

2Cf. Merx, lyic Proph. dcs Joel und ihrer Ausleger, Halle, 1879; Stade, De Populo 
Javnn (academical Programme), Giessen, 18S0; and Delitzsch's Article on the other side, 
in the Lutherische Zeitschrift (1851), " Zvvei sichere Ergebnisse im Betreff der Weissa- 
gungsschrift Joels." 

"See Richm's Article in review of Graf, in Stud. u. Kritikoi (1868), pp. 350-370. 



Introductory. 3 1 

well believe far from thankfully, they took the history. 
An exigency of another sort was upon them. But, if I 
mistake not, they have plunged themselves thereby 
into vastly greater difficulties, wholly unforeseen at 
first. It has obliged them to separate themselves from 
some of the very ablest of their friends, who still regard 
this history as among the oldest parts of the Bible. It 
has forced them to reverse the old-time order of Elohist 
and Jehovist, and thus to leave at the chronological 
head of the Bible those two infinitely weighty chapters 
of Genesis which are the record of the Fall and its 
accompanying promise justly claimed to be of more 
importance than the whole Pentateuch besides. More 
than all, we have in this very Elohistic history itself a 
document which carries within it the condemnation of 
the hypothesis. . It simply does not agree, on any 
principles of theirs, with the laws to which they have 
reluctantly joined it. As actual history of those 
ancient times, it is intelligible, and can be accounted 
for ; but as an invention of the time of the exile, to 
preface and introduce the Levitical legislation, it is 
preposterous ! The contents of these chapters are 
heterogeneous. Their teachings respecting sacrifice ; 
the technical names they apply to various offerings ; 
the practices they allow or forbid, in other respects, 
and their whole point of view can be harmonized on no 
such supposition. The man, or the set of men, capable 
of originating the legislation of Leviticus and Numbers 
in the fifth century B.C., or in any other century, cer- 
tainly was incapable of so absurd a thing as to invent 
the history that precedes it as its introduction, or find- 
ing it at hand consciously to use it as such.^ 

1 See Article by Delitzsch " Opfer," in Riehm's Handworterbuch des Bib.Altertions, 
p. II 14. Cf. Watson, ibid. p. 19 1. f. He says of the theological ideas of the Patriarchs: 
" Did the patriaichs realize the idea of God's omnipresence? Genesis teaches us this 



32 TJlc PentatczLch : Its Origin and Structtcre. 

And then, besides, there is the abnormity of reasoning, 
as these critics do, about this ''Code of the Priests." 
They claim that it is essentially a fiction, written to 
compass certain ends. It has its nucleus in the taber- 
nacle and its rites, which never really existed, since it 
is only a reflection of Solomon's temple projected back 
into the Mosaic age. But, forthwith, they go on to 
reason about the document as though it were actual 
history, able to sustain the weightiest historical conclu- 
sions. They tell us of the emphasis it lays on the 
centralization of worship, on the distinction it makes 
between the priests and Levites, and the like, and 
insist that this shows an historical development appro- 
priate only to the time of the exile. But, if the " Code 
of the Priests " be fiction, then it is not a history. And 
if it invented the story of the tabernacle and made it 
Mosaic simply for effect, who shall say that it did not 
invent the distinction between the priests and the 
Levites, and all the other details, also for effect } Who 
has a right to pronounce just where fancy ends and fact 
begins ? It would appear that our boasted critical 
method is again at fault. True it is, that a romance 
may take the coloring of its time, and teach us history. 

truth, but the Patriarchs had hardly learned it; cf. Gen. iii. 8; iv. i6; xvi. 13; xviii. 21. 
Did they regard God as one who searches the hearts and reins? The same answer may 
be given. Notice how God is represented as arriving at the knowledge of the guilt of 
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. xviii. 20-22). Observe the difference of tone between Abra- 
ham's simple and childlike expostulations with God in Gen. xviii. 23, etc., and the deep 
heart-searchings and anxious intercessions of the prophets." He remarks further of their 
idolatrous systems. " Image worship is not unknown, and there are such things as 
'strange gods.' But idolatry is not the sin of the age. No idolatrous system is presented 
to our notice, the names of no false gods appear. The sinners of the age, the antedilu- 
vians and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, are not described as worshipers of 
false gods, but as o.Tenders against fundamental principles of morality. Here is a strong 
proof of genuineness. . . . What an irresistible temptation it would be to the later pro- 
plietic historian of the critical theory to utilize the flood and the destruction of Sodom 
and Gomorrah, in his attack against the sin of his age — idolatry." Watson illustrates 
the same principle in the matter o{ political ideas, the nature 0/ sin, and the absence 0/ 
reference io persons and institutions 0/ a later date. 



Introductory. 33 

But when we have only the work itself to depend upon, 
who may decide where to draw the line ? How, espe- 
cially, can we know in the case of an imaginative writer 
like the present, who would carry us back into the 
Mosaic age, how much the castles in the air he builds 
will be modeled on principles that rule in his own, and 
how much be the reflection of other, times ? ^ 

Still further, we find it just as anomalous and incon- 
sistent to claim, as this theory does, that works like 
ours should be imputed to Moses at all. Who was 
Moses ? According to the theory (at least as devel- 
oped by its principal advocates), a half-mythical hero 
living away back beyond the barbarous period of the 
judges whose mysterious figure is abnormally enlarged 
by the mists that envelop it. Why, then, this feverish 
anxiety of a people through a whole millennium to 
attribute their highest achievements in legislation to 
him who was at home in a period that knew no law ? 
No one thinks of imputing the Magna Charta of Eng- 
land to Arthur of the Round Table. What gives to 
Moses a right to so high a position, when we must go 
by the royal David and the great Samuel to reach him } 
And why especially fictitiously ascribe to him two great 
codes of laws so diverse, and from this point of view so 
contradictory, as the Book of Deuteronomy and the 
" Code of the Priests." For we can understand how 
Moses himself after the experience of twice a score of 
years might modify, on entering Canaan, his own 
statutes. But that a priest of the time of the exile, or 
a company of priests, should seek to palm off as Mosaic 
the Levitical legislation on a reluctating people, in the 
face of Deuteronomy already, a little while before, 

^This argument has been well put by Kittel, in Theologische Stttdien aus IViirteffi- 
berg (1881), pp. 40, 151 f. 



34 TJie PentatettcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

ostensibly received as Mosaic, would be the height of 
absurdity ; it would be invoking the name and authority 
of Moses for that which was demonstrably un-Mosaic. 

This course appears still more unreasonable when it 
is noted that our critics are making ever less of the 
man of whom the books themselves have made so 
much. Until of late a modicum of Pentateuch laws has 
been allowed a great antiquity, at least in an oral form. 
This is true of the so-called Book of the Covenant, that 
is, four chapters in Exodus including the ten command- 
ments. But now there is a weakening also here, 
Wellhausen seeing no good reason why the Mosaic 
origin even of the ten commandments should be main- 
tained.^ What is the cause ? One reason is obvious : 
the existence of the ten commandments, especially the 
second of them, cannot be made to harmonize with the 
supposed earlier attitude of Israel toward idolatry. 
And do not all these ancient documents mysteriously 
"hang together," to use an expression of the critics.-^ 
Place side by side this Book of the Covenant and the 
"Code of the Priests." Is there any falling off } Are 
not the ten words fully up in form and spirit to any 
part of it } But admit a Moses of the ten command- 
ments, and their Sinaitic setting, and where can we 
stop, where is our theory of development } We have 
admitted the work of a master, and we must admit the 
master himself. We have a monument chiseled in 
stone that we are still proud to set high above any work 
of uninspired genius — there must have been an artist, 
too, greater and nobler than his work. 

I find another inconsistency quite as great in the 
fact that this " Code of the Priests " is ascribed by our 
critics to the time of the exile. Why there especially ? 

1 Eiicyclop{edia Britaniiica, vol. xiii. p. 399. 



Introductojy. 35 

Objections to placing it there are numerous enough, 
and not one reason for it, if you accept the simple 
matter of getting, in this way, the time required by 
such a theory of development. Outside of this sup- 
posed production, there is not in the entire period the 
first trace of any Mosaic tradition. One will look in 
vain in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah for a single 
suggestion of the possibility of such an enterprise as 
this. The Torah Ezra introduces is conspicuously the 
old Mosaic. That part of it now called the " Code of 
the Priests" is never even cited in his writings. It is 
obviously not that which is mirrored in the peculiar 
legislation of the exile ; is even directly opposed to it in 
some important respects. The high-priest of these post- 
exilian books, for instance, is far from holding the 
commanding place assigned in the Levitical law. The 
whole organization of the priesthood has undergone a 
decided change — new offices with new names, Nethi- 
nim, Sopherim, various leaders of music, being intro- 
duced of which tills " Code of the Priests " knows 
nothing. 

So that, aside from the serious difficulty of explain- 
ing how a work could have been written in the exile 
without a sign of the grammatical forms, syntax, and 
language of that period, but agreeing exactly in its 
archaisms with the oldest portions of the Pentateuch, 
we have this still weightier objection, of its essential, 
material inappropriateness to the age said to have 
produced it as the culmination of a process then reach- 
ing its bloom. The conclusion is scarcely to be 
resisted that here, again, an awkward theory needed to 
be accommodated. Our critics have at last simply 
unloaded at this point, with an apparent sense of relief, 
a document which they had tried in vain to adjust to 



36 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncture. 

every previous age succeeding Moses. This age, too, 
equally protests against it; simply will not have it; 
scornfully repels with a reforming zeal, heightened by 
seventy years of exile, a literary imposture thus ground- 
lessly charged upon it. 

An important fact seems to have been strangely over- 
looked thus far in this whole discussion : that the time 
of the exile was the period when, as it is universally 
agreed, the synagogues came into prominence. Long 
musing by the rivers of Babylon had borne its fruit. 
Under the common guidance of priest and prophet it 
was beneath the open sky that prayer had been wont 
to be made. The false idea that worship was solely a 
matter of priestly functions and of brilliant shrines had 
been effectually exploded. Not alone the hard lot of 
exiles, but the disappointment of the second temple had 
brought it about, and the spiritual lesson which the 
seers of Judah and Israel alike had all along been striv- 
ing to teach was at last acknowledged : that to under- 
stand the law and do it was more than all burnt-offering. 
On his return from Babylon, it was Ezra himself who 
set the example of liberty from ceremonial observances. 
At the very time when, as our critics think, he was sur- 
reptitiously introducing a priestly code of his own, from 
his pulpit of wood before the water-gate, he was acting 
in positive contravention of its exclusive spirit. Under 
the very shadow of the temple he was doing that for 
which these laws would have pointed him to the temple 
courts. 

The same century could never have produced on any 
theory of development tendencies so directly antago- 
nistic — the centripetal and centrifugal. A "Code of 
the Priests " can never have sprung, on naturalistic prin- 
ciples, from an age so bare of priests and priestly power, 



Introductory. 37 

It demands exclusiveness just when men are pining for 
greater breadth and freedom. It saddles with a burden- 
some ritual a people who have learned by recent ex- 
perience how high the spirit is above the form. It 
makes centralization imperative, when God's providence 
is teaching the worth of a larger measure of diffusion 
and independence. It turns all eyes and calls all 
worshipers to the degenerate temple at the very crisis 
when began historically that grand popular movement 
in the direction of the synagogues which ended in sup- 
planting altogether the dominant influence of the temple 
and its Sadducsean hierarchy. 

This, moreover, suggests the consideration that the 
post-exilian history of the Jewish people down to this 
very day is just as much a matter that needs explanation 
on the basis of the present theory. For such a mighty 
growth as this you must have depth of soil, and you 
must have time. The decade of centuries antedating 
the exile are none too numerous. The clear-cut schism 
of the Samaritans ; the singular attitude of the Israel- 
itish nation over against the great world-powers — the 
Persian, the Greek, the Roman ; the tremendous earnest- 
ness displaying itself in sects like those of the Pharisees 
and Sadducees ; the heroic, and in the annals of religious 
wars as yet unequaled, struggle of the Maccabees ; 
they have no sufficient ground in the shallow sacerdotal- 
ism of an aspiring priesthood of the exile. This is no 
mere zeal for ecclesiastical observances. "We fight," 
said Judas Maccabaeus, *'for our lives and for our 
laws."^ And elsewhere, respecting the temple services 
of which they had been deprived, in a sentiment worthy 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews : " God did not choose 
the people for the place's sake, but the place for the 
people's sake." 2 

^ I Mac. iii. 21. 2 3 Mac. v. 19. 



38 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

And the marvel of the Jewish race through eighteen 
Christian centuries, without political power, without a 
home, without a standing among the nations of the 
earth, forever ground between the upper and nether 
millstone of civil disabilities and moral obloquy, clearly 
resting under what one has called the "sacred anger" 
of their God, and yet ominously preserved, keeping un- 
changed every national peculiarity, succumbing to 
nothing, as little to the detestable ostracism and Jew- 
baiting of our day as to the barbarous cruelties of the 
Middle Ages : it can be accounted for by no theological 
riffraff, no easy-going system of history and laws, which 
you may turn end for end without essential injury. No 
agnostic misconception indeed can veil the fact that in 
this people we have the archetype of a religious prin- 
ciple, rather a redemptive plan in its unfolding, reaching 
backward to the beginning, and in its very indestructi- 
bility a striking prophecy of the consummation. ^ We 
have heard of the demand which the sceptical Frederick 
II. of Prussia once made upon his chaplain: an un- 
answerable proof of the divinity of the Scriptures, plain 
and short, if possible, a single word. And you know 
how the demand was met, and met as was required, by 
a single word, and that word, just as full of mysterious 
meaning to-day as ever before, was — Israel.^ 

But a crowning inconsistency which I find in the 
methods and conclusions of our critics is that, while 
busy with codes and their proper distribution among 
the centuries, they have strangely overlooked the law- 
giver himself, have completely failed to account for the 
conception of such a character as that of Moses and the 
unique portrayal of it in the Pentateuch, Dazzled, as it 
should seem, by the glare of their own torches, they 

1 Cf. Rom. xi. T2. 2 cf. Naville, The Christ C1S80), p. 204. 



Introductory. 39 

have never fully gauged the magnitude of the problem 
which they undertake to solve. When the destructive 
critics of the New Testament have finished their work, 
if such a supposition be allowable, and torn piecemeal 
the four histories of our Lord, parceling out the frag- 
ments to different hands and different times, there will 
still remain untouched, and forever above the reach of 
critical experts, the peerless Christ to be accounted for ; 
and here, in like manner, is the Moses of the Pentateuch 
coming with radiant face from God's presence. A 
greater miracle than Jesus, he is called, if he be a 
product of the early age. But is it easier, then, to 
believe that a priestly coterie of Josiah's time and Ezra's 
time made him than that God made him.?^ Is the 
miracle one whit lessened, if he be regarded as a cheap 
composite, the patched up manikin of half a score of 
different hands, plying their crafty arts through half a 
score of centuries } As a gift of God's good providence 
sent for a special purpose, the character is intelligible. 
It has been ever so in human history, that great sons of 
their times have, sooner or later, responded to the clarion 
call of great opportunities. But, as the puppet of a 
show, the result of some hocus-pocus of Jehovist and 

1 Cf. Payne-Smith, The Credibility of the Pentateuch, p. 37 f. " Alike the patriot- 
ism, the self-denial, and the purposes sought by Moses are intelligible, if he were a real 
man, but the history is most improbable if he were a mythical hero. He might have made 
his own son his successor in the chieftainship : as a matter of fact he passes him by, and 
chooses instead Joshua, a young noble of the race of Ephraim. On the conquest of 
Canaan, Joshua receives large landed estates, but for the sons of Moses there was nothing 
more than their share of the Levitical offerings. Even the headship of the tribe of Levi 
belonged to Aaron, the elder brother of Moses ; and upon him and his descendants the high- 
priesthood was conferred. They did consequently hold a grand position; but as for Moses 
himself, in i Chron. vi., after he has been barely mentioned, his race drops entirely out of 
the genealogy, while the family of Aaron is carefully described. All this is full of meaning 
typically and finds its explanation in New Testament truths; but to these I must not 
refer, as they lie outside the argument. I only point out the facts as given in the nar- 
rative, that while Moses conferred the spiritual power on Aaron, and provided for its 
permanent continuance, he took diligent care that his own kingly office (Deut. xxxiii. 5) 
should neither be permanent nor hereditary. Yet hereditary rights were not unknown." 



40 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Sirncture. 

Elohist, Deuteronomist and Redactor, a mere toy- 
picture, made of blocks, squared and painted by different 
hands — that strains our credulity too far. It is in- 
credible. 

Would any one venture the hypothesis that Raphael's 
Madonna di San Sisto might have been the mutual 
product of a number of different artists, who employed 
themselves in different periods upon it, while Raphael 
himself was but a sort of final redactor of the work? 
Is it a possible supposition that any half-dozen hewers 
of marble, though each one were gifted with a master's 
skill, could ever have realized the conception which 
Michael Angelo attained in his statue of Moses ? It is 
not to be thought of. The marble itself must speak to 
brand it as false. But here is a unity and a complete- 
ness higher than that of art, — the unity of nature, the 
unity of a noble human life. Perfect it is not, for then 
it would be other than human ; but — from that first 
sweet picture of the little child nestling in its cradle of 
papyrus leaves, among the reeds of the Nile, to that 
last, solemn journey to the top of Nebo, to get one 
glimpse of the dear land which, because of sin, he 
might not set his foot upon — unique, and to the final 
stroke beyond the possible reach of invention. 

Greatest of all names in these ancient records, great 
as deliverer and leader of Israel ; great as lawgiver and 
religious reformer in a savage age, what form more 
worthy than his to stand beside the shaggy Elijah as fit 
exponent of Israelitish history amidst the transfiguring 
glory of him who was its chiefest end and ripest 
bloom } 

Conjured into the history he was not, and could not 
have been ; and just as little can he be conjured out of it. 
But in it, and of it, then the miracle, if miracle it be, is 



Introductory. 41 

God's, and cannot be overthrown. And with the over- 
shadowing personality of a Moses, indisputably fixed in 
the age of Moses, you have not only a sure and stead- 
fast anchor for the documents that bear his name, but 
also a sufficient pledge of their genuineness and order. 
The material universe during these cycles of time 
since the exodus has been slowly undergoing change. 
The "everlasting hills," of which the Psalmist speaks, 
have taken on other shapes, gradually yielding to the 
touch of time. But this sublime figure of the ancient 
books, and those first great truths he uttered so long 
ago, remain unchanged. Our critics may succeed in 
obscuring, for some and for a time, the image and its 
historic setting ; but to efface or greatly alter it were 
impossible. Like the palimpsest of the gospel, it may 
be written over and over with other thoughts. But 
there will also be happy discoverers in the good time to 
come. The human will fade out at last, and the divine 
shine through. 



II. 

HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE CRITICISM.' 



Previous to the Christian era there are no traces of a 
second opinion concerning the authorship of the Penta- 
teuch : it was universally ascribed to Moses. So tena- 
ciously, indeed, was the opinion held and so undisturbed 
was it by any critical questionings that the two foremost 
representatives of Jewish public sentiment and Jewish 
history in the time of our Lord, Philo ^ and Josephus,^ 
did not scruple even to state that the last eight verses 
of Deuteronomy which describe the lawgiver's death 
were, no less than the rest, from the lawgiver's hand. 
This opinion, as it concerned Mosaic authorship in 
general, our Lord and his disciples seem to have shared. 
In sixteen different passages, including parallels, Moses 
is referred to by the Master. In two of them (John 
iii. 14 ; vi. 32) he is connected with important events in 
the history of the exodus. In two others he is referred 
to as lawgiver (Matt, xxiii. 2 ; John vii. 19), and in the 
second in a manner too explicit to escape attention : 
" Did not Moses give you the law ? " In a number of 
others (Matt. viii. 4; cf. Mark i. 44 ; Luke v. 14; Matt. 
xix. 8. Cf. Mark x. 3-9 ; Mark vii. 10 ; Luke xx. 37 ; John 

^ a. Harimann, Hz'siori'sc/i-Ar/isc/ie Forsc/iuu£:-eu, Tpp. 1-71; Diestel, Gcschichte d. 
Alt. Test, etc., p. 555 ff. ; Merx, " Nachwort " (pp. Ixxviii.-cxxii.) of Tuch's Covi- 
mentar uber die Ge7icsis; Bleek's Einleitioig in d. Alt. Test., ed. by Wellhnusen, pp. 
1-178; Siegfried, Spinoza als Kritiker, etc.; Strack, in Herzog's Encyk., art. 
"Pentateuch" ; Briggs, Biblical Study, pp. 164-213; Curtiss, "Sketches of Penta- 
teuch Criticism" in the Bibliotheca Sacra for J.inuary 1884, pp. 1-23, 660-697. 

2 De Vita Mosis, iii. 39. ^ Antiq., iv. 8, 48. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 43 

vii. 22, 23), most of them in circmTistances apparently 
forbidding the theory of simple accommodation to 
a popular misconception, he speaks, respectively, 
of Moses as having given a law concerning leprosy 
(of. Lev. xiii. xiv), concerning obedience to parents (cf. 
Ex. XX. 12), concerning divorce (cf. Deut. xxiv. 1-4),"^ 
thus directly imputing to him legislation belonging to 
each of the three great parts into which many modern 
critics divide the Pentateuch and refer to widely sep- 
arated periods of time. 

In three other passages (Mark xii. 26 ; Luke xvi. 29, 
31 ; xxiv. 44) in speaking of the Old Testament, as a 
whole or in part, he employs the epithets, the "Book of 
Moses," "Moses and the Prophets," "the Law of Moses, 
the Prophets, and the Psalms," in a way, considering the 
usages of his times, to indicate that he accepted, or at 
least did not reject, the popular sentiment regarding 
the origin of the Pentateuch. And finally, in John v. 
45-47, our Lord appeals to the "writings of Moses" as 
witnessing to him, telling his Jewish hearers that, if 
they really believed Moses, they would also believe him 
because Moses wrote of him. 

It is well known, further, that different New Testa- 
ment writers in numerous instances — not less than a 
score and a half altogether — follow the example thus 
set them by the Master and that there is not a single 
case of deviation from the rule of ascribing the Penta- 
teuch to Moses, or, in other words, of connecting him 
with larger or smaller portions of it in a way to imply 
his literary responsibility for its contents as a whole. 

These undisputed facts, now, are by no means cited 
at this point, as forestalling critical discussion and 
proving beyond question for everybody that Moses 

1 In Mark x. 5 he says Moses wrote this law. 



44 The PentateitcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

actually wrote the Pentateuch or any considerable 
portions of it ; but simply as historical facts having a 
very important bearing — and for some persons, at least, 
a decisive one ^ — on the point at issue, and that cannot 
be left out of account whatever conclusions may be 
finally reached. There is no slight significance in the 
very strength of the later attestation in its relation to 
the earlier. 

Of the testimony of the post-Mosaic biblical books it 
has been said that it is susceptible of a twofold inter- 
pretation and does not force us to the inference that 
they represent the whole Pentateuch to be Mosaic. Of 
the post-exilian writings, again, it is affirmed that 
their great distance from the period when the Penta- 
teuch originated unfits them to be altogether competent 
and convincing witnesses to its authorship. 

Due weight must be allowed to such objections. The 
latter one, in truth, is not enough considered by critics 
of the present day who often speak with the assurance 
of contemporaries and eyewitnesses of events that took 
place in the exodus period or before the flood. On 
the other hand, it must not be overlooked that if we 
have to do with a "tradition," so called, it is one that 
is distinctly traceable in authentic sources of informa- 
tion ; is uniform, uninterrupted, and universal, and when 
submitted to the test of national writers of acknowl- 
edged trustworthiness, of the purest motives, and the 
highest moral purpose, so far from breaking down or 
weakening in the least, it finds in them its clearest 
enunciation and its most emphatic support. 

The circumstance is worthy of attention that the 
first, as far as we have information, to challenge the 

' Cf. an Art. by Professor Boardman on " Inspiration " in the Bihliothcca Sacra 
for July, 1884, p. 528 f. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 45 

Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch were the heretical 
leaders and skeptics of the sub-apostolic age. Not that 
this, in itself considered, should militate against the 
position from a critical point of view. It serves simply 
to show that, in this case, there is a motive sufficient 
to account for the interruption now, for the first time, 
made in the current of history. The objections 
offered are wholly of a dogmatic nature ; they are not 
so much directed against Moses as Mosaism. 

The Gnostic, for example, sees no way of escapmg 
from the teachings of the Pentateuch as he finds it, and 
hence he separates it into parts having, as he claims, 
differences in origin a,nd being vested with an unequal 
authority. The Nazarene, to whom animal food is 
obnoxious, in like manner refuses to accept as genuine 
any book that makes his forefathers consumers and 
offerers of the forbidden flesh. ^ The apostate Julian, 
on the other hand, simply vents his spleen on Moses, 
as he does on Jesus, and shows to what extent a rooted 
aversion has perverted his judgment when he charges 
the self-renunciating leader of the exodus with dema- 
gogism.2 

In fact, a history of the criticism might almost pass 
by these earliest critics as standing quite outside the 
range of genuine seekers after truth, did not the 
same danger which they so conspicuously illustrate 
threaten us at every step in our inquiries. Preposses- 
sions are inevitable. We can no more be rid of them 
than of our skins. They are, indeed, an essential part 
of our mental and moral furnishing.^ But stubborn 

'^ Epi^hanii Paiiarinni. Haer. xviii. i; xxxiii. 3,4. 

^Cf. yitliani Iiiiperatoris librorum contra C/iristianos quae siipersuni, ed. by 
Neumann, Leipz., 1880. Prolegomena, pp. 20, 21. 

3 On this account, I cannot feel full sympathy with the views expressed in an able 
address delivered before the second annual Baptist Autumnal Conference by my 



46 TJic Pentateuch : Its Origin and Striccture. 

prejudice is quite another thing, and nothing is more 
fatal to the successful pursuit of facts. To claim to be 
free from it is the cheapest of professions. To be 
really free from it, one of the rarest of virtues. 

The rise of anything that might properly be called 
criticism in the department of the Pentateuch seems to 
have been with Aben Ezra. His active life falls within 
the first half of the twelfth century. He was an ardent 
scholar, but a neo-Platonist in philosophy. His attitude 
toward the Scriptures is much in dispute. Pronounced 
it was not ; nor can it be interpreted as antagonistic 
to the claim that "the law was given by Moses." When 
a compatriot, a certain " Isaac," remarks on the well- 
known verse in Genesis where, by implication, kings 

esteemed friend, Dr. D. G. Lyon, of Cambridge, on ** The Results of Modern Biblical 
Criticism." He says: " On the other hand, biblical criticism does not love the Bible. 
In common with all science, its only aim and its only love is truth. The Bible is to it 
what the stars are to astronomy, or the flowers to botany — the field of its exploration, 
within which it seeks the truth. Biblical criticism, as criticism, is the same whether 
practised by a pietist or a rationalist. The term ' devout criticism ' would be impossible — 
fully as much 30 as the term ' Christian science.' The spirit of a critic may be Christian 
or otherwise; science has no religion and is hostile to none." Cf. Proceedings, ec , 
Boston, 1883, p. 60. I confess to liking better the careful statements of Principal Rainy 
{^The Bible and Criticism, p. 136 f. ; cf. p. no f.) : " Now, I think, there is an interest 
here to be guarded, if we can guard it wisely. Some think that we should concede to 
criticism the right to work out its own results, taking no responsibility about them, 
showing no antagonism to any of them, assured that, in the end of the day, all established 
facts will be found harmonizing with all well-warranted faith. That is not a view in 
which I can acquiesce. I think criticism, even as carried on by believing men, needs an 
influence arising from the point of view of those who represent simply the interests of the 
common faith. I think it is the better for having to reckon with that. Critical probabili- 
ties are often no more thaa critical plausibilities. Besides, criticism, full of scientific 
enthusiasm for methods formed and proved in the field of general literature, is in danger 
of not always rightly estimating how the divine element in the Scriptures modifies the 
problem and qualifies the results. It is the business and the point of honor of criticism to 
do the utmost and the very best that can be done with the natural, the historical, the 
common laws and the common conditions; and in this case criiicism is none the worse 
for a certain counter-pressure to compel her to make her work peculiarly sure when her 
problems are peculiarly delicate. . . . Every day of my life I fall in with critical opinions 
which I find myself dismissing from my mind as opinions which I am not going to adopt, 
partly, no doubt, because I don't think it likely any strong evidence will be found in 
support of them; but partly also because whatever presumptions could be pleaded for 
them, I rate highly the presumptions arising against them, from their apparent incongruity 
with wliat appears to me to bo a sound and reasonable view of the Bible." 



Historical Sketch of tJie Criticism. 47 

are ascribed to Israel (Gen. xxxvi. 31) that it must have 
been written in the days of Jehosaphat, this scholar 
takes him to task for the assertion and vindicates its 
origin in the Mosaic period {Com. in Deut. xxxiii. 5). 
His reasoning is far from brilliant ; but what conclu- 
sion he would have us draw from it is beyond 
dispute. Hence when Aben Ezra elsewhere (in his 
comments on Deut. i. 2) indicates a number of passages 
in the Pentateuch as, in his view, of doubtful origin or 
doubtful meaning,^ it is scarcely fair to go behind the 
record and charge him with holding some other opinion 
concerning them. His attitude is simply one of inquiry 
and is equally creditable to his discrimination and good 
sense. It cannot be considered as really prejudicing 
that which he elsewhere clearly assumes toward the 
Pentateuch as a whole.^ 

Following Aben Ezra the next critic in order of time 
to attract particular notice was Carlstadt, a contem- 
porary of Luther (1480-1541).^ Vain as he was im- 
petuous and rash, the Reformation never came nearer 
shipwreck than when he temporarily guided its fortunes 
during the absence of his chief at Wartburg. The very 
work which contains his criticisms on the Pentateuch 
contains also a subtle attack on Luther, whom he 
regarded as a rival* 

Carlstadt not only denied the Mosaic authorship of the 

1 "If thou shalt understand," he says, " the secret of the twelve [that is, concluding 
verses of the Pentateuch], also, ' Moses wrote this book' [Deut. xxxi. 9] and * the Canaan- 
ite was then in the land' [Gen. xii. 6], ' in the mountain of the Lord he appeareth ' [Gen. 
xxii. 14], also, 'behold his bed is abed of iron' [Deut. iii. 11], thou shalt recognize the 
truth." The rabbinical commentary from which I verify this passage was published in 
Wilna, 1876. 

2 Similarly Hartmann: " Aber er woUte durch solche Andeutungen den Pentateuch 
keineswegs verdachlig machen oder das gbttliche Ansehen des erlauchten Gesetzgebers im 
Geringsten schmalern." — ForscJui7ige7i, etc., p. i. 

3 De Caii07iicis Scriptu7'is. 1520. 

* Cf. Mayer, Dissertatio de Karolstadio, Greifswald, 1703. Jager, A7idreas Bodcn- 
stei7i V071 Karlstadt, Stuttgart, 1856. 



48 The Pentateuch : Its Origiii and Structure. 

Pentateuch, but declared the man demented who could 
attribute it to Moses.^ His reasons, however, are as 
uncertain as his temper. Moses could not have written 
the account of his own death. But that account appears 
in the same style as the remainder of the Pentateuch. 
Hence, Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. 

Those twelve concluding verses of Deuteronomy, 
however, make an exceedingly slender thread to bind 
together such massive argumentation. Were we to 
admit the ability of Carlstadt, or any other man, to 
decide the question of style with such limited means of 
comparison, and were we even to admit that the style of 
the Pentateuch is not Mosaic, we might be still a good 
way off from admitting that Moses is not responsible for 
the literary contents of the Pentateuch whatever may 
have been his sources, or whoever his amanuensis. 

A little later, Andreas Masius (d. 1573), a venturesome 
Roman Catholic jurist, of Belgium, discussed the same 
topic. In the preface and other portions of a scholarly 
commentary on Joshua,^ he advanced the opinion that 
Ezra, either alone or in conjunction with others, in edit- 
ing the Pentateuch, as he assumes that he did, may have 
interpolated it, also, to the extent of single explanatory 
words, here and there, or possibly sentences. Still, he 
did so, if at all, according to Masius, under the special 
guidance of the Spirit who inspired Moses, the original 
writer. Even so mild and conservative a statement as 
this was held by his ecclesiastical superiors to be fraught 
with peril, and Masius's book was interdicted. That is, 
it was buried alive to come up again in a crop of similar, 
or more intemperate, works, like that of Carlstadt, which 
no interdict could reach. 

For one such the world did not have long to wait : it 

1 Dc Canonicis, etc., p. 364 ff. 2 Josvac Intpcratoris Historia, 1574. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 49 

was Hobbes's Leviathan} In spirit and methods Hobbes 
was the forerunner of the modern scientific sceptic. He 
vigorously apphed to history and revelation the princi- 
ples that govern in the study of physics. Yet, in his 
criticisms of the Pentateuch, Hobbes was no inconoclast. 
Compared with Wellhausen's Geschichte, there is little 
in his book of portentous title that would now attract 
unusual attention, although at that time it cost him his 
position at court. He denied the Mosaic authorship of 
the Pentateuch as a whole, mainly on the ground of 
scattered expressions supposed to be inconsistent with 
such a theory. What is directly ascribed to Moses in 
the Pentateuch itself, as, for example, the fourteen chap- 
ters of legislation in the Book of Deuteronomy, even so 
much of a theological outlaw as Hobbes had not the 
hardihood to pronounce post-Mosaic. 

A contemporaneous ally of the English critic was the 
Frenchman, Isaac Peyrere (i 594-1676). His work on 
the Praeadamites ^ provided him the opportunity for dis- 
coursing on the composition of the Pentateuch. He 
denied, for much the same reasons as Hobbes, that in 
its present form it is a work of Moses ; but, like Hobbes, 
he conceded the participation of Moses in the composi- 
tion. The leader of the exodus had kept a journal of 
principal events, including the giving of the law, and 
had prefaced the same wdth a history of the world from 
the beginning, not excepting the Praeadamites. If these 
precious autographs had not been lost — Peyrere does 
not tell us how they were so soon lost, notwithstanding 
the evident care that was taken of them — we should 
not have had the anachronisms, confused arrangement, 
and obscurities of the present narrative ; nor should we 

1 Published originally in 1651, new editions have appeared in England within the last 
three years. His works in fall were published by Molesworth, London, 1839-45. 

2 Systevia Theologiciim ex Praadamitarum Hypothesi, 1655. 



50 The PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

have been obliged to mourn the absence of all docu- 
mentary support for the doctrine of the Prseadamites, 
excepting only a single verse in the Epistle to the 
Romans (v. 14). 

The fact that Peyrere was persuaded afterward to 
retract his pet theories, and also to abjure the Protest- 
ant faith, leaves the force of his reasoning, be it weak 
or strong, precisely where the retraction of Galileo left 
the movements of the heavenly bodies. 

An abler critic than either Hobbes or Peyrere and a 
bolder one than even Carlstadt was Benedict Spinoza.^ 
He was a Jew of extraordinary learning for his times 
and a man whom no pains could turn aside from his 
convictions. His great fault as a critic lay in his 
philosophy. He rejected, at the start, a supernatural 
revelation, miracle and prophecy, and was the father 
of all such as handle the weapons of rationalistic 
science in dealing with the Scriptures. 

Following up the clues furnished by Aben Ezra, 
whom he, however, characterized as somewhat of a 
weathercock and trimmer, he went on to indicate still 
other peculiarities of the Pentateuch which, in his 
judgment, disprove the authorship of Moses. There 
was the fact that Moses is spoken of, so often, in the 
third person ; that he is pronounced the meekest of men 
(Num. xii. 3); that certain places are called by names 
which they first received at a later period ; that the 
hand that concludes the work describes the death of 
the lawgiver and lauds him as the first of prophets. 

These considerations, Spinoza averred, furnish incon- 
testable evidence that the Five Books are not from 
Moses. That he wrote parts of them is evident enough. 
Pie wrote a Book of the Wars of God (Ex. xvii. 14 ; cf. 

^ T racial us Thcologico-Politic us , 1670. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism, 5 1 

Num. xxi. 14), the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 22- 
xxiv.), some Book of the Law (Deut. xxxi. 9), which 
furnished the basis for the present Book of Deuteron- 
omy.i But the Pentateuch is the work of some late 
compiler, not unlikely Ezra. His unity of purpose is 
everywhere apparent ; but he carries it out imperfectly 
and leaves not a little in the way of editing to be 
desired. 

Thus far, critical discussions of the Pentateuch have 
been mostly of the nature of assaults on its genuine- 
ness and the chief response they have evoked has been 
that of authority and repression. With Richard Simon, 
whose book on the critical history of the Old Testa- 
ment appeared eight years after that of Spinoza, began 
the answer of argument.^ The laws of the Pentateuch, 
he contended, are the veritable autograph of Moses, 
while the history of his times was written, under his 
direction, by public annalists after Egyptian models. 
The somewhat heterogeneous products of these diverse 
pens, together with the Mosaic legislation, form the 
Pentateuch as we now have it. The theory was ingen- 
ious and, for a Roman Catholic writer of that day, 

1 Neither Spinoza, nor Hobbes mentioned above, gives Moses credit for anything like 
all that is ascribed to him in the Scriptures. He is said (Ex. xxiv. 4) to have written 
that part of Exodus styled (vs. 7) the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii.). He wrote 
also the form in which that covenant was renewed (Ex. xxxiv. 10-26; cf. vs. 27). Nearly 
every law of the three middle books is directly traced to him as its authoritative mediator. 
The same is true of the code of Deuteronomy (xii.-xxvi.), if, indeed, it be not asserted in 
that book (xxxi. 9) that all the Pentateuch is from his hand. It would be using the term 
" this law " in scarcely a broader sense than it is employed in the earlier part of Deuteron- 
omy itself (i. 5). According to Exodus xvii. 14, again, Moses was commanded to write a 
document concerning the devotement of Amalek to destruction audit was to be written 
" in the book," that is, be added to records which had already been made (cf. Josh. xxx. 
8). He is said, further, to have put down in writing a list of the more than forty stations 
where the Israelites encamped in the wilderness, and, clearly, not as simple scribe, but, as 
the context shows, as the divinely appointed leader of the host that went forth out of 
Egypt "under the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Num. xxxiii. 2; cf vs. i). The so- 
called " Song of Moses " (Deut. xxxii.) is declared not only to have been written down 
by him, but to have been taught to the children of Israel (cf. xxxi. 22). 

^ Histoire Critiqice dii Vieux Testatneiii, 1678. 



52 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

ingenuous ; but it was cumbersome and very imperfectly 
applied. 

Ostensibly to correct the mistakes of a predecessor, 
but really to complicate still more what De Wette called 
the "dangerous game" of the critics, appeared seven 
years later the anonymously published work of Le 
Clerc.i Under cover of a remonstrance with Simon for 
his intemperate assault on Protestant writers, this 
scholar airs a theory that in temerity would do credit to 
our own day. A variety of internal signs, he avers, 
disprove the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (Gen. 
xii. 6; xiv. 14; xxxv. 21 ; xxxvi. 31; xxxvii. 14; xl. 15). 
It must have come into its present form at a much later 
period. Who so likely to have put his shaping hand 
upon it as that priest who in the Book of Kings 
(2 Kings xvii. 27 f.) is said to have been sent from 
Babylon to teach the Samaritan colonists the Jewish 
faith .? 

Simon, however, in another work,^ took up the 
gauntlet thus thrown down ; and, convinced by him, or 
with more probability by the reasoning of the distin- 
guished Hebraist, Witsius,^ Le Clerc soon afterward 
retracted his hypothesis,^ accounting for all internal diffi- 
culties in the Mosaic records as simple interpolations 
and vindicating for Moses the proper authorship of the 
work. Undeterred by so inglorious a surrender on the 
part of a contemporary, still another Dutch scholar, 
the Mennonite Anton van Dale, hazarded, in connection 
with a work on idolatry,^ the conjecture that the Penta- 
teuch is a compilation at the hand of the exilian Ezra, 

1 Seiitimcns de quelques thiologieiis de Hollande sur I'Histoire Critique, 1685. 

2 Reponse an livre itUitnlc Scntinteiis, etc., 1696. 

3 Miscellaiieoruin Sacroriiin Libri, 1692, 1700. 

* Commentary OIL Genesis {Prolcgom. dissertat. tcrtia) , 1693. 
5 De Origins et Progressu Idololatriae, 1696. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 5 3 

the pandects of Moses and writings of the eariier 
historians and prophets furnishing him the material. 

Two things will have been specially observed in the 
review of opinions up to this point, and in what may be 
called its first period : first, and foremost, the extreme 
superficiality of the reasons given for denying the 
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, although they 
have been thought worthy of an almost exact repro- 
duction in our own day. It surely needs no great 
depth of insight to see the precariousness of the con- 
clusion that because Moses could not well have written 
the last twelve verses of Deuteronomy, therefore he 
could not have been the author of the rest of the book ; 
that because, in Gen. xiv. 14, Laish is called by the 
name of Dan, common in later times, therefore the 
section where it is found, in fact, the whole of Genesis, 
originated in the later times when that name was 
common. It betrays a remarkable confusion of ideas, 
in short, to accept as signs of authorship the very 
things that spring to the eye even of a cursory reader 
as evidence, if any exists, of editorship. It is not the 
freckle, but the face, that determines the complexion. 

And, second, it appears that none of these adverse 
critics are disposed to deny the literary activity of 
Moses, or even his predominant influence in the com- 
position of the Pentateuch. If we have not his auto- 
graph throughout, or even at all, it is conceded that 
the apographs are largely shaped by that autograph. 
Spinoza, who would have flinched, it is likely, from 
no conclusions to which his principles and reasoning- 
seemed to lead him, finds no occasion as yet for dis- 
pensing with the chief figure of Hebrew history ; as he 
finds no necessity for theories of wholesale invention 
and multitudinous textual corruptions. He does, it is 



54 TJie PentateucJi: Its Origin and Structure, 

true, represent Ezra as a compiler ; but that is still at 
a considerable remove from representing him as a con- 
spirator. 

As it concerns the general nature and results of Pen- 
tateuch criticism in this its opening period, its isolated 
and sporadic character is obvious. Schools of criticism 
there are none. No great critical authorities have thus 
far arisen, within the church or out of it, to attract a 
following by their superior position or to compel it by 
the force of their reasoning. In fact, the majority of 
controversialists are Philistines by profession. 

Still, it is seldom that they seem inspired by such 
aversion as led Rimarius, a century later, to stigmatize 
the leader of the exodus as a shameless impostor.^ It 
is rather a superabounding intellectual vitality or a 
restiveness of authority. One and all, as I have already 
hinted, concede to the hand of Moses what would now 
be thought a fatal preeminence everywhere. A part of 
them only have any knowledge of the original tongues 
of Scripture. With an embarrassing profusion of con- 
jectures, there is a lamentable absence of really signifi- 
cant facts. The masses of believing people, meanwhile, 
along with the more thoughtful biblical scholars remain 
unmoved. The struggle has not yet transferred itself 
to the church. The famous representatives of Protest- 
antism, Carpzov, Spanheim, Prideaux, and Vitringa, 
stand solidly together with the Roman Catholics Du 
Pin, Calmet, and Simon, in defence of the view that the 
Pentateuch is essentially Mosaic. 

During the first eighty years of the eighteenth cen- 
tury no new assaults were made on this position. 
Michaelis, in his Introduction to the Old Testanienty the 

1 Cf. the Wolf enbuttel Fragments . It was a work published by Lessing in a periodical 
form from 1771, under the title, Zur Geschichte nnd Littcratnr a»s den Sch'dtzen des 
hcrzoglichen Bibliothek zu IVoi/enbiittel. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 55 

first part of which did not appear till 1787/ could not 
well have been more pronounced in support of it. 
"That Moses," he says, "is the author of the five books 
which we ordinarily name from him is the common 
view of Jews and Christians ; and I hold it," he adds, 
"not only as perfectly correct, but also as something 
which is as certain as anything that can be asserted of 
the author of an ancient book can be."^ 

That the books claim to be that for which the Jews 
held them, he regarded as indisputable. Later interpo- 
lations he would not deny ; but that Ezra, David, or the 
high priest Hilkiah had surreptitously introduced the 
compositions themselves could be easily shown from 
their contents to be false. With equal clearness, and 
to the same general effect, up to the last of the four 
editions of his voluminous Introduction to the Old Testa- 
mentj appearing from 1782 to 1824, testified Johann 
Gottfried Eichhorn, although his work was one charac- 
terized by great boldness of conception, the highest 
scholarly enthusiasm, and was universally recognized as 
marking a new departure in theological science. 

In the meantime, however, there were evident signs 
that the deepening current of Pentateuch criticism was 
about to be diverted into a new channel. As early as 
1753 there had been published simultaneously at Brus- 
sels and Paris a little book by Jean Astruc, a devout 
and studious Roman Catholic physician, on the struc- 
ture of Genesis.^ In this book much use was made of 
the circumstance that in Genesis the names of God, 
Elohim and Jehovah, are not employed indiscriminately, 

'^ Einleituiig in die Gottlichen Schrifte7i d. Alien Testaments, Cf. pp. 150, 153, 156. 

2 A similar position, ably supported by arguments drawn from the works themselves, 
was taken by Jerusalem, Briefe ilber die Mosaischen Schriften, 1783. 

3 Conjccttires sur les ISIeinoires origi7iai(X dont il pardit que Moyse s'esi servipoiir 
composer le livre de la Genese. It appeared in a German translation at Frankfort in 
1789. 



56 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origm and Stmcture. 

but usually alternate with one another in what appear 
to be alternate sections. 

A new discovery by Astruc this was not. The 
same singularity had been observed by Simon, Vitringa, 
and others. But it was Astruc who first called 
particular attention to the fact, showed its extent, and 
sought to draw important conclusions from it. Such an 
employment of the divine names indicated, in his view, 
the use of documents in the preparation of the work, 
two leading ones and others of minor importance. Of 
these original records Moses, in his narrative of events 
which had occurred ages before his day, had made faith- 
ful and proper use. In fact, he had simply copied them 
literally and placed them, each by itself, in its related 
order. And it was due wholly to the careless hands of 
Moses' successors that in recasting them for the purpose 
of a connected narrative there had arisen the repetitions 
and other irregularities of Genesis as it now appears. 

Of this original theory of Astruc, Eichhorn had 
availed himself ; but by no means as a servile imitator. 
To the former's argument derived from the peculiar 
recurrence of the divine names, he added another, of 
which quite too confident and unrestricted an applica- 
tion has since been made, based on differences of style. 
The entire contents of the first fifty-two chapters of the 
Pentateuch he carefully divided up between these two 
documents, holding, however, that, in some rare cases, 
other authorities had been made use of.^ From begin- 
ning to end, as it has been remarked, Eichhorn, like 
Astruc, was loyal to the prevailing, and almost universal, 
sentiment of his time, that, bating certain trifling addi- 
tions by later editors, Moses was the responsible author 
of the Pentateuch. 

' Einleitung, p. 107 f. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 57 

It is much to be regretted that so reverent a scholar 
as Astriic and so sharp a critic as Eichhorn did not see 
the necessity of discriminating between the fact that 
original documents were most likely used in the 
composition of Genesis ^ and the capacity of modern 
scholars clearly to distinguish and separate them 
from one another, even to closely connected phrases 
and single words. It is singular that numerous 
marked exceptions to the alleged methodical recur- 
rence of the one or other divine name did not 
awaken a suspicion that something besides a diversity 
of documents was at the basis of such an interchange 
of titles ; as, for example, a change of topic or of 
point of view. 

It is an acknowledged impossibility, in fact, to found 
a rational theory of separable documents on the use of 
the divine names as they now appear in Genesis ; it is 
needful first to introduce another theory that these 
names have been, to a greater or less extent, displaced 
and changed, to meet the exigencies of a continuous 
history. For it is far from true that the present 
so-called Elohim documents are exclusively Elohistic or 
the Jehovah documents Jehovistic.^ And were they so, 
what possible ground could it furnish for carrying on 
the rigorous analysis through Exodus, Leviticus, Num- 

1 That such a people as Israel is known to have been should have definite traditions 
both written and oral concerning their patriarchal ancestors and the beginnings of history 
and that these traditions were of sufficient strength to survive the hard experiences of 
Egypt is no unreasonable hypothesis. 

- Cf. Professor Green's remarks in SchafiTs edition of Herzog s.v. " Pentateuch," p. 1801 : 
" As the ark of the covenant is the voucher for the unity of the sanctuary, and for the 
genuineness of the Mosaic legislation respecting it, so the contents of the ark form no 
inconsiderable bulwark for the unity of the Pentateuch. If monumental evidence is to be 
trusted, the Decalogue is Mosaic, and is preserved in Ex. xx. in its genuine authentic 
form. The critics assign it to the Jehovist, and claim for It the characteristics of Jeho- 
vistic style. But it has also the peculiar phrases of Deuteronomy; and the reason 
annexed to the fourth commandment is based on the Elohistic account of the creation. 
(Gen. i. i-ii. 3). This unquestionably Mosaic document includes Elohist, Jehovist, and 
Deuteronomist all in one." 



5 8 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

bers, and Deuteronomy, where even this slight trace of 
diversity, or any other that can be made generally 
intelligible, fails to show itself? One looks for more 
clearness in what purport to be scientific investigations 
and results. The analysis of water into its original 
elements, or of atmospheric air, may be made demonstra- 
tive. Everybody accepts the conclusion, not because 
he wishes to, but because he must. In this other 
analysis, started by Astruc and brought to its climax, it 
is to be hoped, by Graf and Wellhausen, where elements 
are concerned more subtle and irresponsive to our tests 
than oxygen or hydrogen, there is nothing to compel 
the assent of incredulity. There is solely the dictum 
of that coterie of scholars who, for some reason best 
known to themselves, have adopted the current theory. 
If it were unanimous, it would still be far from indis- 
putable or even Very imposing. 

Take, for example, the fourth chapter of Genesis, 
which, because the name for God used in it is generally 
Jehovah, is called Jehovistic. But the word Elohim is 
found in verse 25, and a satisfactory reason for its occur- 
rence there, from the point of view of the document 
hypothesis, we are wholly unable to discover. Chapter 
xvii., on the other hand, is pronounced Elohistic ; but at 
the very beginning Jehovah is used interchangeably 
with El Shaddai : ^ " Now when Abram was ninety-nine 
years old Jehovah appeared to Abraham and said unto 
him I am El Shaddai ; walk before me, and be thou 
perfect." The narrative then proceeds with the uni- 
form use of Elohim till the next chapter is reached and 
there is a change of subject. 

^ This title is identified by critics generally with Elohim (ci. Gen. xxviii.). And they 
are consequently forced to say that in this passage Elohim stood in the original instead of 
Jehovah and was changed by the Jchovist. But this is entirely out of harmony with the 
usage of the Scriptures which makes El Shaddai correlative with Jehovah. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 59 

In Genesis xxviii. 20-22, again, in one and the same 
prayer both names of the Deity are employed. *' If 
Elohim will be with me," says Jacob at Bethel, . . . 
"and I come again unto my father's house and Jehovah 
will be my Elohim, then this stone which I have set up 
as a pillar shall be the house of Elohim." 

In Exodus iii., similarly, and inexplicably as it seems 
to us on the hypothesis of the documents, these two 
designations of the divine Being are freely used for one 
another in the account of the burning bush at Sinai. 
Of the unity of the narrative, there ought to be no 
doubt ; it is stamped upon it as unmistakably as upon 
the coin from the mint. Its exceptional character in 
the use of the divine names, it is true, has been 
explained by calling it a mixed document. But it is the 
hypothesis of a baffled and bewildered criticism. The 
very necessity of acknowledging, in addition to other 
anomalies, the presence of such mixed documents is a 
confession of the inadequacy of a theory based on the 
alleged exclusive use of a certain divine name in cer- 
tain original sections of the Pentateuch. 

Why the two words Elohim and Jehovah alternate 
with one another so peculiarly in the earlier chapters of 
Genesis may be accounted for, to some extent, by a 
theory of diverse original sources of information. 
There is no disposition to deny that oral tradition, 
supported by various written documents, was very 
largely depended on in the composition of the work. 
But in mmiy cases this peculiarity may be better 
accounted for by supposing that some specific moral 
purpose voiced itself in this way. What that purpose 
was it is not difficult in most instances even now to 
discover. It may be expected to appear more fully 
when the real meaning and inner relationships of the 
words Elohim and Jehovah have been determined. 



6o TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Throughout the Pentateuch there is a marked recog- 
nition of the meaning of names. No fact is more 
deeply impressed on the history of the two chief patri- 
archs, Abraham and Jacob. And if we have Elohistic 
and Jehovistic sections in Genesis, so we have in the 
Psalms and other Scriptures. In fact, we are much 
more likely to find a key to the anomalies of Genesis in 
the nineteenth Psalm, where the Creator, El, of the first 
part is boldly discriminated from the Revealer, Jehovah, 
of the second part, than in any Conjectures sur les 
Memoires. 

In Ecclesiastes, too, the only title used for God is 
Elohim, while in Proverbs the case is reversed and 
Jehovah only occurs. So in Job, while both titles are 
employed, it is in a way of unexampled eccentricity. i If 
there be a secret, therefore, it is not one that is confined 
to Genesis. It is, above all, no secret of Pentateuch 
criticism, in general, whose conjectural solution it is 
permitted to make the cornerstone of all its ponderous 
architectures. 

But it was not by reasoning of this kind that the 
hypothesis of documents was to meet its overthrow ; it 
was rather by a more consistent and thorough applica- 
tion of its own false postulates within the Pentateuch 
itself.^ Astruc and Eichhorn had found traces of 
original sources in Genesis, but had been, naturally, 
much embarrassed in the really impossible task of 
dissecting them out and accounting for their present 
form. To this Sisyphus problem the criticism now 
addressed its chief energies and from that day to this it 
has presented itself largely in the role of the manipu- 

* In the prologue, epilogue, and historical portions the title for God is Jehovah ; while in 
the discourses proper, making up the body of the work, it is El or Eloah. 

2 Much the same line of reasoning found in Eichhorn is followed in Ugen's Vie 
Urku)iden,^X.c., and Gramberg's Libri Gencseos . . . adutnbratio nova. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 6 1 

lator of a bewildering spectacle of analyses vying with 
counter-analyses. 

Where Eichhorn, for example, had seen two leading 
original sources with an occasional excerpt from others, 
Vater, apparently with the same spectacles, saw simply 
a mass of fragments with neither a logical nor chrono- 
logical connection. Their present juxtaposition was 
due to a series of collectors and editors whose dates 
range from the time of David to that of Jeremiah. 

To the objection that it is difficult to conceive of so 
many single, disconnected compositions as circulating 
about in a written form in Israel, he replies : " Difficult, 
to be sure, it is ; but it is a difficulty which inheres in 
the subject, that is, in the form of the Pentateuch as it 
now appears. And it is far less difficult and a great 
deal less artificial than the theory of two documents 
covering the same ground, the parts of which have been 
patched together to make up Genesis." ^ 

Hasse took much the same view ^ in his earlier work, 
but retracted it twenty years later ^ to return to the 
position that the Pentateuch is essentially Mosaic. 

Its ablest supporter, next to Vater, and a more dis- 
criminating one than he, in some respects, was Anton 
Theodor Hartmann.* In a series of investigations 
extending over more than six hundred octavo pages he 
aims to show from a variety of considerations that the 
so-called Books of Moses had their origin in a number 
of comparatively insignificant, more or less mythical, 
post-Mosaic fragments which formed the nuclei of 
larger collections and, finally, little by little, were 
brought together and took on the volume and orderly 
arrangement of the present Pentateuch. The problem 
of so mysterious, not to say miraculous, a growth min- 

1 Comtnentar, p. 514 f. ^ Aussichten zti kmt/tigen Aie/kl'drttngen, 1785. 

^ Entdeckungen, etc , 1805. ^ Forschungen, etc. 



62 The PentateticJi : Its Origin and StrncUcre. 

istered to by invisible hands, witnessed to by no living 
creature, does not seem to have disturbed the equanim- 
ity with which the author of HistoriscJi-kritische For- 
schungen announces his far from historical conclusions. 

The theory of fragments, on which that of the docu- 
ments now went to pieces, had, however, this advan- 
tage over its predecessor, that it applied with greater 
uniformity and consistency, not alone in Genesis, but 
throughout the Pentateuch, the principles of analysis it 
had inherited. This was at the same time its fatal 
misfortune. It brought up in absurdity. It failed to 
give any good account of the remarkable unity of 
design and symmetry of arrangement which are among 
the most noticeable characteristics of the work from 
beginning to end. Hence the necessity of new postu- 
lates in which this factor should have its proper place. 
It was provided in what soon came to be known as the 
theory of supplements. 

The way had been prepared for it by publications 
from De Wette,^ Ewald,^ Gramberg,^ Stahelin,* Bleek,^ 
Tuch,^ and others, who during the first forty years of 
the present century had been wrestling with the same 
problem as Vater and Hartmann, but after another 
method. The latter had made a chief object of the 
analysis, carrying it to the point of disintegration ; the 
former worked on the hypothesis of unity, and were 
constructive where the other had been destructive. 

De Wette, for example, characterized what seemed to 
him to be the fundamental portion of Genesis as an 
"Elohim Epic." Ewald called it the "Book of Ori- 
gins." Tuch, the "Original Document." One and all 
recognized an historical groundwork and vindicated for 

"^Kritik de7' Is. Geschichte, iZoj. - Cot)iJ>osition dcr Genesis, iZ'z^. ^ Librf Genes- 
eos, etc., 1828. "^ Kritische Untersuchiingeti, 1830. ^' De lihri Geiicseos origiiie, 1836. 
« Com., 1838, 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 63 

the composition a marked unity of plan, which, how- 
ever, they refused to believe existed from the beginning. 
An original Elohim document had been worked up by a 
process of supplements and interpolations into what we 
now have essentially in Genesis ; and the hand that did 
it was that of the Jehovist. " Nay, not Genesis alone," 
says Tuch : " but the whole Hexateuch, excepting Deu- 
teronomy, including the legislation, has at its basis an 
historical composition, in which God is styled Elohim." 
Of this the Jehovist made the freest use, changing it 
and adding to it to suit his purpose, until the result, in 
its main features, is before us. 

A very harmless theory, one might say. Only put 
Moses in the place of the Jehovist, and endue him with 
that "wisdom from above," which we know he must 
have had, and what can one want more } But the 
theory is far from being either harmless or consistent. 
It is not to be forgotten that Deuteronomy is unceremo- 
niously dropped out of the arrangement as a later pro- 
duction and with it, naturally, goes Moses, at least, the 
Moses of the exodus.^ It is to be carefully remem- 
bered that these men, worthy men and admirable 
scholars, nevertheless of like passions with ourselves, 
professed to be able to point out the — to us — invisible 
boundaries of the so-called original document, the places 
where it has been supplemented and where it has been 
changed, but with a fatal lack of unanimity in doing it. 

It is well known, moreover, to all who have given the 
subject attention, that this alleged original document, 
announced as containing a continuous history from the 
beginning of the world, when stripped of its supposed 
accessories, has the appearance of anything else rather 

1 A later effort of Stahelln {Kriti'sche Untersuchtcngen iiher den Pentateuch, etc., 
1843) to show that the Jehovist and the Deuteronomist were one and the same person, 
Delitzsch characterizes {Cotn. iiber die Genesis, p. 34) as a failure. 



64 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

than a continuous history. It is almost as lean a col- 
lection of planless, unintelligible fragments as the 
conjectural additions of the Jehovist would be when 
separated from their context. 

And, what is still more serious, we find that this 
so-named original history, in a number of signal 
instances, refers back to matters which, by our critics, 
are made a part of the Jehovist's additions.^ The advo- 
cates of the theory will tell us, it is true, that these are 
Jehovistic interpolations in the body of the Elohim doc- 
ument, or are disjecta membra, that the Elohim docu- 
ment itself originally contained, and more besides ; all 
of which to a simple inquirer, who is not already pre- 
possessed with accordant theories, has quite too much 
the appearance of evasion. 

But objections arising from without and from an 
alleged "unscientific" point of view could not be 
expected to have great weight with the scholars most 
concerned. There were others, however, to which they 
could not remain insensible. The theory of documents 
had died of too much analysis. Its originals, by its 
own friends and its own reasoning, were shown to 
be but disconnected fragments that could never be 
accepted as the foundation of the Pentateuch. The 
theory of supplements, on the other hand, died of too 
little analysis. If Vater and Hartmann had gone too 
far, just as surely, it was now afifirmed, had Ewald and 
Bleek failed to go far enough. With an eye single to 
the unity of the work, they had overlooked important 
evidences of diversity. An edited '* Book of Origins'* 
did not meet the conditions of the problem. 

It was Hupfeld who led the vigorous and successful 

^With Gen. v. 29 cf. iii. 17; with xvii. 20, xvi. 10; xix. 29 with xiii. 10-13; xxii. 
19 with xxi. 33. For other passages see Keil's Introd. i., p. 96. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 65 

attack on the current hypothesis.^ He charged it with 
accepting as a sole original document what was itself 
but an obvious compilation. Its so-called Elohim 
original ought to be divided, as already Ilgen,^ fifty 
years before, had pointed out, not merely into two 
wholly separate Elohim originals, but had been loaded 
down besides with a mass of heterogeneous materials 
that quite obscured its true character. The supposed 
Jehovist editor was really no editor at all, but repre- 
sented an original work. 

There were, in fact, three continuous historical com- 
positions at the foundation of the Pentateuch, two 
Elohistic and one Jehovistic. The first began with the 
creation and ended with the partition of Canaan. The 
second, beginning with Genesis xx., treated only of the 
patriarchs and bore a striking resemblance to the Jeho- 
vistic. The latter, like the first Elohistic, originally 
contained a narrative beginning with the creation. 
These three quite independent accounts a later editor 
combined into a continuous one, hesitating at no 
liberties with the text he had before him to accomplish 
his design. 

This was the hypothesis of Hupfeld, and, unsubstan- 
tial as to some it might appear, it proved to be made of 
tougher material than its predecessor, which was not 
long in giving way before it. Critics since his time 
have, indeed, here and there, shown a disposition to 
yield reluctantly a position which had been so ably 
defended by masters of Old Testament research ; but 
there can be no disputing the fact that the main current 
of the criticism passed quickly into the channel which 
Hupf eld's strong blows cleaved for it. 

Henceforth we hear less of a document and more of 

1 Qztellen der Genesis, 1853. 2 /)/^ Urkitndcn, etc., 1798. 



66 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

documents. The Jehovist takes his place beside the 
Elohist, like an Aaron beside Moses. And a second 
Elohist, introduced to relieve perplexity, has become 
the innocent cause of other perplexities. Above all a 
Redactor comes upon the stage who, from being, at 
first, a mere shifter of the scenery, in a brief decade or 
two grows to be the chief personage of the drama. 

The grounds of Hupfeld's conclusions we cannot 
tarry to elucidate at length. They were mainly these 
two: the peculiar use of the divine names, and the 
discrepancies alleged to exist between the Jehovist and 
Elohists, on the one hand, and the two Elohists com- 
pared together, on the other. He failed, however, to 
tell us how his theory of a later editor who was blind 
to these discrepancies while sharp enough in other 
respects can help the matter. Might not the Jehovist, 
too, easily have overlooked or accounted trivial sup- 
posed disharmonies which a Redactor equipped with 
modern German wisdom and dialectics did not stumble 
at, and with which, moreover, the Jewish people for 
nearly three millenniums have had no serious diffi- 
culty? But, at least, a point had been gained in 
shifting an uneasy burden. It could scarcely be 
expected that it would voluntarily be again put back on 
the same sore spot. 

Before proceeding, now, to show the main course 
which the criticism naturally took under Hupfeld's 
sturdy impulsion, especially its chief development in 
our own times, it may be well to indicate diverging 
lines. As I have said, with him, about thirty years ago, 
some were inclined to call a halt. They refused to 
follow the new master. The measuring-rule of the 
analysis began, apparently, to look too much like the 
wand of a conjurer. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 6^ 

Among these separists and remonstrants was Schra- 
der, the latest editor of De Wette's Introduction to the 
Old Testame?it. 

The theory he represents is remarkable for the preci- 
sion and assurance with which different documents, 
so called, are assigned to certain periods and places in 
Israelitish history.^ The leading Elohim section, for 
example, he affirms to be the work of a priest of 
David's time. It extends to the end of the Book of 
Joshua. The second Elohist was probably from north- 
ern Israel. He wrote soon after the disruption of the 
kingdom (975-950 B.C.). Down to near the middle of 
the first Book of Kings (i Kings ix. 28) his hand can 
be distinctly traced. The Jehovist was also a northern 
Israelite, who came upon the stage a little more than a 
century later (825-800 B.C.). He combined the two 
Elohists in one work with his own, adding to the compi- 
lation not a little of what was then current in the form 
of oral tradition. Deuteronomy (iv. 44-xxviii.) sprung 
up about two hundred years later, its author himself 
uniting it to the still incomplete Hexateuch structure. 
After the Babylonian exile, Joshua was separated from 
the other five books.^ 

It will be seen that Schrader follows Hupfeld but in 
part. He agrees with him in his main divisions, but 
differs as it respects the origin of the work as a whole. 

Another independent critic of high rank is Noldeke.^ 
According to him the authors of all the three principal 
documents lived during, or not long after, the time of 
David ; but the first Elohist was the last to appear. 
The Jehovist worked over the second Elohist ; but it is 

1 Cf. Lebrbuch der Histortsch-kritischen Eznleitung (De Wette's^, 1869, pp. 252- 
325, and art. " Pentateuch" in ScYie^nk&Vs Bibel-Lex. 

2 See a careful resume of this and other theories in Strack's art. " Pentateuch" in 
Herzog's Encyk. 2te Aufl. 

3 Untersnchjingen zur Kritik d. A. T. 1869. 



6S The Pentateuch : Its OriHn and Structure. 



c> 



impossible now to separate the two into their con- 
stituent parts. The Deuteronomist wrote antecedent 
to the reforms of Josiah and incorporated his work with 
the Hexateuch. Most significant is Noldeke's position 
in two respects : that Hke Schrader he beheves Deu- 
teronomy followed not only the second but the first 
Elohist, and that the attempt to classify, at present, 
two of the leading so-called original documents of the 
Pentateuch is labor lost. 

More important even than the dissent of Schrader 
and Noldeke is that of August Dillmann. As to the 
difference in age between the two Elohists he ventures to 
assert nothing. The second is certainly somewhat older 
than the Jehovist, who makes use of it, and seems, like 
Deuteronomy, to have arisen not long before the reign 
of Josiah. All the three are based on still more ancient 
authorities, the nucleus of the second Elohist being the 
Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx. 22-xxiii. 19). In this 
last statement, Dillmann, it will be carefully noted, 
differs from most other critics early and late, who 
assign this important portion of Exodus to the Jehovist, 
Noldeke, however, avowing a 71071 possumus. 

In his commentary on Genesis published twelve years 
since,^ Delitzsch characterized an assertion of Merx,^ 
that Hupfeld had overthrown the hypothesis of supple- 
ments, as a mistake. In the cases just cited we see few 
signs of its survival except as a wreck, portions of which 
have been variously fitted up, according to individual 
taste, to complete, if possible, the uncertain voyage. 
Delitzsch himself has so far modified his views within 
a short time that even the hypothesis of supplements 
must now look exceedingly antiquated to him. He 
accepts, contrary to Schrader and Dillmann, the order 

1 Com. iiber die Genesis, 1872. Cf. p. 34. ^Tuch's Com. 2te Aufl. p. Ixxxviii. ff. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 69 

of the documents adopted by the most recent analysts, 
that is, Jehovist, second Elohist, Deuteronomy, first 
Elohist, but differs greatly from them as respects the 
time of composition. The Jehovist and Deuteronomist, 
as he holds, both wrote before Isaiah, the second Elohist 
before Ezekiel ; and while the work of composing and 
emending the Pentateuch probably went on till after the 
Babylonian exile, it is still fundamentally Mosaic and 
the product of supernatural revelation. 

Professor Delitzsch,^ as his many pupils and friends 
gladly recognize, is a strong and delightful man and an 
admirable scholar. But it is a very stiff and ugly cur- 
j ent, in which he has thus placed himself, and the result 
is not yet clear. He will at least pardon the wish that 
he may get safely out of it. 

And here it may not be amiss to consider some 
important conclusions that seem to flow out of the 
several sporadic views we have been considering. 
They are important out of all proportion to their 
number. They are not the views of laymen, but of 
eminent biblical scholars who believe in criticism and, 
to a greater or less extent, in the principles of Penta- 
teuch analysis. These scholars notoriously disagree 
not only, in some points, from one another, but espe- 
cially from the great body of critics with whom they are 
often indiscriminately classed. If it were simply a dif- 
ference of view respecting the time when the several 
documents appeared, though the difference were a thou- 
sand years, as in some cases it is, it would be, from the 
point of viezv of the criticism, serious without being 
strictly essential. But when one calls the Book of the 
Covenant (Ex. xx. 22-xxiii. 19) with all its striking 

^Cf.jiii addition to " Pentateuch-kritische Studlen" in Zeitschrift fur Kirchliche 
Wissenschaft, etc. 1880, Hebrew Studefit, 1S82, Nos. i.-iv. and Curtiss's art. " Delitzsch 
on the Origin and Composition of the Pentateuch" in Presbyterian Review, July, 1882. 



*jO The PentateticJi : Its Origin and Strnctitre. 

characteristics Elohistic while others call it Jehovistic, 
it touches the vital question of the analysis at a vital 
point. It is, in fact, an axe laid at the root of the tree. 

When another, who fully believes in this newly dis- 
covered prerogative for determining and resolving docu 
ments in the Pentateuch, nevertheless disputes the 
power of anybody to separate Jehovist from second 
Elohist, it is a staggering blow at the very foundation 
of the critical fabric. When such scholars as Schrader, 
Noldeke, and Dillmann unite in the opinion that the 
latest composition of the Pentateuch is Deuteronomy, 
the fact that this is the old historical position is of little 
account here in comparison with another matter : that 
the critics are divided at a point where the contact 
should have been closest. A fatal distrust of critical 
opinions is necessarily awakened. One may, indeed, 
be pointed back to the first nine chapters of Genesis 
and reminded that at this point Noldeke and Dillmann 
find themselves in almost exact agreement in what they 
impute to the first Elohist. The only difference, it is 
said, concerns five verses or parts of verses. But opin- 
ions on the first few chapters of Genesis are harmless 
byplay compared with the dismemberment and disloca- 
tion of the Pentateuch. Besides, there is still a differ- 
ence in five verses or parts of verses. And it is by no 
means certain that this apparently small disagreement, 
taken in connection with other anomalies of the criti- 
cism, does not thoroughly vitiate the whole matter, 
investing it with elements of uncertainty that not only 
destroy its value for purposes of scientific study, but 
also, and especially, show its incompatability with a 
revelation such as the Bible purports to be. 

We now turn to follow the main current of the 
criticism from the time of Hupfeld. The work of 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 7 1 

Edward Bohmer^ was of minor interest except as an 
indication of the self-assurance bordering on frivolity 
with which subjective opinions were pronounced on the 
age and order of appearance of the Pentateuch compo- 
sitions. His principal difference from Hupfeld was in 
a more detailed and slightly altered analysis. 

In 1 86 1 Knobel completed his series of scholarly 
commentaries on the Hexateuch. In themselves con- 
sidered they marked a reaction from current views. 
But Knobel was no come-outer. He was simply a sur- 
viving representative of an earlier order of things. 
The flood had not floated, but only stranded, him. 
His continued advocacy of the exploded supplement 
hypothesis, together with a quite original analysis, 
excited curiosity but did not win adherents. Critics 
have even had the temerity since to suggest that the 
documents of which he so confidently spoke had no 
existence, save in Knobel's imagination.^ 

Keil's Commentary on the Pentateuch also began to 
appear in 186 1. It is needless to say that its clear 
reasoning and conservative spirit had no perceptible 
influence in checking the tide so strongly setting in 
a contrary direction. It was no fault of Keil. His 
arguments from his own point of view, which we 
must believe to be in the main correct, have never been 
answered. They are unanswerable. Kiel's misfortune 
was, if it can be styled a misfortune to be called upon 
to "face a frowning world" in defence of what one 
believes to be the truth, that the Zeitgeist was against 
him. Some day, however, this very fact may prove to 
be his grandest distinction. 

Bishop Colenso's voluminous work^ added little to 

1 Das Erste Buck der Thora, etc. 1862. 

2 Kuenen, in Bleek's Einleit. (1878), p. 153. 

3 The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined, 1862. 



72 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

the discussion that was new ; it added something to 
the acerbity and tartness of it, and served to advertise 
more widely the revolutionary movement that was in 
progress beyond the English Channel. 

The same year, however, there appeared a little 
treatise by Julius Popper,^ which, though extravagant 
even to incoherence in some of its positions, in one 
important respect marked a turning-point in the criti- 
cism of the Pentateuch. The legislation that con- 
cerned the building of the tabernacle contained in 
Exodus XXXV. -xl., and the consecration of the priests in 
Leviticus viii.-x., according to him, did not take on its 
present form until long after the period of the exile. 
Moreover, the work ascribed to the first Elohist, so far 
from being a connected composition was the product of 
a long-continued revision {diaskeue) to which even Ezra 
was far from giving the finishing-touch. 

Popper's conclusions, which he largely deduced from 
the divergences of the Samaritan and Septuagint texts 
from the Massoretic, v/ere too slenderly supported to 
attract more than a very limited attention. But they 
served to encourage the watchful Graf in a scheme 
which, as subsequently elaborated by Wellhausen, now 
dominates Germany. 

Graf was a pupil of Reuss.^ For more than fifty years 
the master has been unsuccessfully iterating views for 
which the pupil, only in another form and manner, 
won an almost immediate hearing. Perhaps, for 
once, the Frenchman failed in the traditional suavity 
as well as in tact. Pie would not allow that even 
the Decalogue is Mosaic. The historical portions of 
the Pentateuch he bluntly declared to be a "gross 

^ Der Biblische Bericht ilbcr die Stiftshilttc, etc. 

2 Cf. his Gcschichte dcs Altcn Test. § 71, and others of his works noted in the 
Bibliography. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 73 

fiction . . . dreams of an impoverished people." Its 
laws really arose after the Prophets and are a post- 
exilian precipitate following ages of production and 
revision. The Book of the Covenant belongs to the 
time of Jehosaphat. Deuteronomy is an invention of 
Josiah to help out a lagging reform. 

Such bold statements of Reuss, which his pupil and 
literary successor was to clothe in a less repugnant 
form and support by more telling arguments, radical as 
they may appear, actually show but a slight divergence 
from the position of Hupfeld and Bohmer, save in the 
one intangible element of time. It is not a difference 
in underlying principles. Reuss, Vater, and Vatke 
simply refused to wait for the slow deductions which 
brought their fellows and successors at last to the same 
result. They unceremoniously leaped the chasm which 
Graf's hypothesis bridged. The chief service of the 
latter is well illustrated by a remark of Duhm -.^ '' Noth- 
ing is simpler," he says, ''than the theory of Graf. It 
was only needful to place a single original authority, 
which is generally called the 'fundamental document,' 
by others, the 'Book of Origins,' as the composition of 
the first Elohist ... in the post-exilian times, in the 
days of Ezra and Nehemiah, in order, with one blow, to 
put the 'Mosaic period' out of the world." 

Graf's earliest publication^ was mainly tentative, yet 
quite in the line of his latest conclusions. In it he 
took the ground that the tabernacle is simply a diminu- 
tive copy of Solomon's temple. All that was said about 
it in the middle books of the Pentateuch belongs to 
their latest post-exilian accretions. Eleven years later 
when his principal work appeared,^ he was prepared to 

1 Die Theologie der Propheten, p. 17. 

2 Covunentatio de tentplo Silonensi, 1855. 

3 Die GeschicJitlichen Bucher des A. T. 1866. 



74 The Pentateuch : Its Origin a7id Strncture. 

say that not only the legislation which concerned the 
tabernacle, but all the laws of the first Elohist — that is, 
the great body of legislation found in Exodus, Leviticus, 
and Numbers — was of the same late origin. The his- 
torical jDortions of this document, however, as had been 
held all along since Astruc's day by the majority of 
critics, he still made the oldest portions of the Penta- 
teuch. 

Like Stahelin^ and Bertheau ^ before him, he found the 
nucleus of this conglomerate of compositions in the laws 
that make up its middle part. To provide a place for 
them seemed to him the first concern. In doing this 
Graf wrenched the first Elohist out of its historical 
setting and brought inextricable confusion into the 
analysis. His order of documents was : first Elohist, 
(historical portions), Jehovist (including second Elohist), 
Deuteronomist, final Redactor (who enlarged the col- 
lection by the addition of the Levitical and other 
priestly legislation). But this final Redactor, so called, 
was really no other than the first Elohist, reappearing 
under another name. So Riehm ^ and others * pointed 
out and argued that, unless Graf gave up the leading 
principles of the analysis as hitherto applied, he had no 
right to separate the legislative portions of this the 
most imj^ortant document of the Pentateuch from the 
historical. Graf yielded to the force of this argumenta- 
tion,^ but without retracing his steps. " Riehm is 
right," he said, "and hence I must maintain that the 
whole of the first Elohist, history as well as laws, is 
post-exilian." 

It was an audacious announcement, but one for which 

^ Ihid. 2 j){g Siebcti Gruppcn Mosazscher Gescizc, 1840. 

3 Stud. 71. Kritik. 1868, pp. 350-379. 

* Kuenen, De Godsdicnst van Israel, p. 202. 

^ Merx. Archiv, etc. 1869, pp. 466-477. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 75 

the way had been prepared, as we have seen, by Reuss, 
Popper, and the earher works of Graf himself. The 
time had come, in fact, when critics were waiting for 
another turn of the kaleidoscope. The old combina- 
tions no longer satisfied them. The documents found 
no secure resting-places in the periods to which they 
had been assigned. It remains to be seen how long the 
present hypothesis, supported though it be by an 
external unanimity hitherto unknown, can resist the 
elements of antagonism and disruption that even in 
greater measure have been gathered up within it. 

One of the first to come to the defence of the new 
position was Kuenen,^ who argued its truthfulness from 
an historic point of view. Then Kayser,^ who treated 
more especially the literary side of the argument. Fol- 
lowing them was Duhm,^ who, assuming the theory to 
be established, attempted to construct a theology of the 
prophets on the basis of it. So far from being de- 
pendent on the Mosaic history and institutions, they 
antedated them, as he held : in fact, were the indirect 
occasion and inspiration of them. 

None of these writers, however, exerted a tithe of the 
influence, in bringing the hypothesis to its present wide 
prevalence, of Julius Wellhausen.* By the boldness of 
his conjectures, the precision of his analysis, the 
keenness and breadth of his reasoning, sophistical and 
specious only, though it often is, as well as by an 
unusually attractive style, he has succeeded in giving it 
a currency which is, at least, unexampled in the history 
of Old Testament criticism. He marks the culminating 
point in that method of criticism that took its rise with 

1 Ibid., and numerous articles in the Theologisck Tijdschrift. 

2 Das vorexilische Buck, etc. 1874. ^ Ibid. 

^ JaJu'bucher fur detdsche Theologie, 1877, 1878; Bleek's Einleittmg (1878); 
Geschichte Israel's (1878) ; Art. " Israel" in the E7icyclopcedia Britafinica, etc. 



^6 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncture. 

Astruc and Eichhorn. But the distance at which he 
stands removed from Astruc and Eichhorn, or even from 
De Wette and Bleek, it would be difficult for the un- 
initiated to conceive. 

It was a simple thing to do, as Duhm affirmed, to 
transfer what had been regarded as the fundamental 
document of the Pentateuch, and making up one half 
of its matter,^ to the period of the Persian supremacy. 
What is easier than a conjecture 1 Two efforts of Graf, 
with the encouragement of his master and other sym- 
pathizers, accomplished it. But if it be anything more 
than a conjecture, if it rest on fact, it is a stupendous 
change that has been effected. The keystone has been 
taken from the arch of Israelitish history, as hitherto 
read and understood, and the whole structure lies in 
ruins. I have already, in the introductory paper, noted 
some objections and indicated a few of the startling 
results flowing from such an hypothesis. I will here 
content myself in concluding the present one with 
offering some additional reasons for regarding it only as 
an hypothesis, and palpably one of the most untenable 
character. 

The scheme, as already outlined, calls for the follow- 
ing division and distribution of the Pentateuch : we 
have first the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.-xxiii., 
xxxiv.), which is tolerably ancient ; but, if dating from 
Moses, not necessarily left by him in a written form or 
containing the Decalogue in its present shape. Then, 
the Jehovist and second Elohist, circulating orally and 
separately at first and so undergoing changes and 
additions, to be at last united together by the Jehovist 
in the period after the division of the kingdom. Third, 
the laws of Deuteronomy and other Dcutcronomic 

^ For its contents see the table at the close of this paper. 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism, 77 

revisions toward the end of the seventh century b.c. 
Fourth, the programme of Ezekiel's temple (xl.-xlviii.), 
marking the greatest transition of the history. Fifth, 
certain chapters of Leviticus (xvii.-xxvi.). Sixth, the 
first Elohist, or '' Priests' Code " as it has come to be 
called, containing the rest of the laws of the Pentateuch 
with their historical setting prefaced by the account of 
the creation (Gen. i.). The whole work was completed 
and introduced, according to Wellhausen, in the year 
444 B.C., and in this most delicate and most difficult 
operation of all the chief ivle was assumed by the 
"Redactor." 

(i) It may be remarked now, first, as it respects such 
a scheme, that it is by no means claimed by its oppo- 
nents that the assumption of the Mosaic authorship of 
the Pentateuch removes all difficulties from the ques- 
tion of its composition, but simply that this assumption 
is beset with the fewest difficulties. 

(2) It is one of the clearly mistaken postulates of the 
proposed hypothesis that it represents the Israel of the 
Mosaic period as an undisciplined and savage horde. 
As matter of fact, it had already become a separate 
people and was rapidly developed into a nation in the 
midst of abundant means and inspiring models for high 
social, literary, and religious progress. 

(3) Granting for the moment the reality of what is 
apparently claimed in the Pentateuch to be Moses and 
the work of Moses, it cannot but be acknowledged 
that there is no character, in the Bible or out of it, 
better fitted to be the mediator of such laws and the 
magna pars of such a history than the adopted son of 
Pharaoh's daughter, the reputed leader of the exodus. 

(4) It is incredible that a people long under the influ- 
ence of Egypt, where a powerful priesthood with 



yS The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

established rights and privileges existed, should itself 
have remained a whole millennium of subsequent inde- 
pendent existence without priests or written regulations 
for them. 

(5) The positive and often-repeated claim made in the 
Pentateuch itself for Mosaic authorship in general has 
not only the emphatic, if sometimes exaggerated, 
external support of all authorities from his day down- 
ward, but also the incidental corroboration of a multi- 
tude of internal characteristics appropriate to his age 
and circumstances. To all this the counter-evidence of 
the criticism can hold no comparison either in trust- 
worthiness or extent. 

(6) The doctrinal teaching of those parts of the Pen- 
tateuch assigned by the Wellhausen theory to the time 
of the exile, at least equally with its other portions, is 
of a primitive and undeveloped character, reflecting 
rather an Israelitic connection with the Egypt of 
Rameses II. and ancient Chaldaea than with Cyrus and 
his successors of the Persian period. 

(7) It is not denied that documents were used in the 
composition of Genesis and to a limited extent in the 
other five books of the Hexateuch. A priori nothing 
could be more likely. But it is denied, the critics them- 
selves being among our witnesses, that any reliable 
criteria have as yet been discovered, or are likely to be 
discovered, for discriminating with accuracy among 
them.^ 

1 The remarks of Professor Green, in the American edition of Herzog's Eiicyk. s.v. 
" Pentateuch," p. 1801, are worthy of special attention. He says of the critical analysis of 
the Pentateuch: " Some things are plausibly said in its favor, but there are serious objec- 
tions to it which have never yet been removed. I cannot regard it as certainly estab- 
lished, even in the Book of Genesis, much less in the remainder of the Pentateuch where 
even Bleek confessed he could no longer sunder the Elohist from the Jehovist: the second 
Elohist he could find nowhere. Thus much, at least, may be safely said: the criteria 
of this proposed analysis are so subtle, not to say mechanical, in their nature, so many 
purely conjectural assumptions are involved, and there is such an entire absence of exter- 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 79 

(8) While differences of style may be recognized to 
some extent, even within the limits of the Hebrew of 
the Pentateuch, it is often quite as likely to be due to 
a difference in the matter treated as to diverse author- 
ship or date. In any case, the style of the ''Priests' 
Code," assigned by Wellhausen to the exile, must be 
admitted to have the peculiar coloring of the most 
ancient Biblical Hebrew, and to be burdened in places 
v/ith infinitesimal details touching matters foreign to 
the cultus of the later period.^ 

(9) The matter of the time when the documents 
were composed is not to be confounded with other 
questions that concern their separation and distribu- 
tion. If the latter, from the nature of the case, are 
largely conjectural, the former is still more so. Dill- 
mann, Schrader, and Riehm, who accept certain 
features of the analysis, nevertheless insist that the 
first Elohist is the oldest document of the Pentateuch, 
while Graf, Wellhausen, and others claim that it is the 
youngest ; and some who adopt Wellhausen' s order of 
arrangement differ extremely from him as it respects 
origin and date. 

nal corroborative testimony, that no reliance can be placed in its conclusions, where these 
conflict with statements of the history itself. Genesis may be made up of various docu- 
ments and yet have been compiled by INIoses. And the same thing is possible in the later 
books of the Pentateuch." 

1 Cf. Ryssel, De Elohtstce Peiitateuchici Sermo}ie,3.nd'DQ\\.tzsch in Zeitschrift fur 
Kirchllche Wissenschaft, etc. 1880, pp. 393-399. The remark of Driver, in the second 
edition of his excellent Treatise on- the Use of the Hebrew Tenses (Oxford, 1881), 
Preface, p. x., that Delitzsch, in this article, unreservedly accepts the position that the use 
of iS*" as a feminine in the Pentateuch is not an archaism, seems to me to be an incorrect 
inference from Delitzsch's words. On p. 397 f., for example, he says : " Da nun aber 
dieses sogar von Personen weiblichen Geschlechts gebrauchte feminine, J^'n auch schon 
zur Zeit der Textredaktion als Sprachfehler gait (denn es ist ausserhalb des Pentateuchs 
unerhort und in dem Samaritanischen hebraischen Pentateuch ist es durchweg beseitigt) , 
so liegt der Textredaktion die Voraussetzung unter, dass in der Sprache der Mosaischen 
Zeit, obgleich sie ein fiir das Femininum ausgepragtes J>^*'n besass, doch der doppel- 
geschlechtige Gebrauch das ^"ri vorgehersscht und die Genusunterscheidung sich auf der 
untersten Stufe der Entwickelung befunden habe. " Cf. also Konig, Z>e Criticae Sacrae 
Argjiineiito e Linguae Legibus Repetito (Leipz. 1879), p. 27. 



8o The Pe7itateuch : Its Oriezu and Structure. 



<i> 



(lo) It is a serious objection to the chronology of the 
documents as assigned by Graf and his successors, from 
the point of view of the criticism they represent, that 
the Jehovist document, containing an account of the fall 
of man and the earliest promise of his recovery, not only 
logically, but especially theologically, considered the 
most important of the Pentateuch records, is placed at 
the beginning of a millenial development. Too early, 
as they would hold, for a protevangelium, it certainly is 
too coherent and purposeful for a myth. 

A similar inconsistency mars the alleged development 
in other respects. From the time of Samuel and the 
earlier prophets, for example, there is held to be a rapid 
deterioration from a state of high spirituality to the 
baldest ceremonialism. But this is as much opposed to 
the principle that the religion of Israel is a natural 
growth as it is to the actual history of the period. ^ 

(i i) The hypothesis into which those of De Wette 
and Hupfeld have bloomed, to say nothing of its earlier 
phases, is based largely on a series of petitio principii. 
It is obliged to assume at the outset the impossibility 
of much its opponents regard as vital : as, for example, 
the historical credibility of the Pentateuch, particularly 
on its supernatural side. To the books that bear wit- 
ness against it, it assigns a novel position which 
insures their silence, or it renders their evidence 
nugatory by charges of interpolation and revision. 
Proof texts play a less prominent part in its programme 

1 Weddell's remarks in the Old Testament Student for June, 1884, p. 402, have in view 
much the same fallacy : "Accepting the rationalistic hypothesis of the New Criticism, 
Israel was either a religious development, an evolution; or it was a religious decadence, 
a failure. If it was a development up from low beginnings, then Moses is one difficulty. 
We cannot account for him. If it was a national declension and failure, then what shall 
we do with Christ and his words. . . . Our Bible lies before us. What do we find therein? 
Covenant, law, Gospel; priest, prophet, Messiah. These stand in reciprocal relation. 
Tliat relationship is not counter-destructive." 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 8 1 

than textual corruptions. Its master of ceremonies 
throughout is the '' Redactor." 

What Dillmann said of the position of Wellhausen 
to the effect that each of the three leading documents 
of the Pentateuch had passed through several editions 
before being united to its companion documents, that 
it was an " hypothesis of perplexity/' is ^ no less true 
of the scheme as a whole. 

(12) It is charged upon the advocates of the common 
historical belief that their premise of a divine revela- 
tion, accredited by prophecy and miracle, leaves them 
no option. The same may fairly be retorted against 
those who substitute for it the fixed premise of 
a simply natural development. Its defenders are no 
longer free. Their subsequent course of reasoning can 
only be regarded as predetermined and compulsory. 

(13) But a theory which finds itself forced by exigen- 
cies peculiar to itself to deny that written laws came 
from Moses, that any considerable portion of the 
Psalter is Davidic, that the earlier prophets authorita- 
tively rebuked idol worship, that there are allusions to 
the ceremonial law as such in the historical books, is, 
on its face, radically at fault and unworthy of our 
confidence. 

(14) The uncertainty which the methods of criticism 
now under review have already brought, and are calcu- 
lated to bring, upon the vital questions of revelation, 
inspiration, and the Old Testament reli^on generally, 
with which the religion of the New Testament cen- 
tring in the teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus 
Christ is inseparably connected, can only be regarded 
by reflecting Christian men as a proof of their falla- 

1 Die Bucher Exodus u. Leviticus (Leipz. 1880), p. viii. : "Mit einem Q^ Q- Q'', Ji 
J- J^, E^ E- E'', vermag ich nichts anzufangen und kann darin nur Yerlegenheits- 
hypothesen sehen." 



82 TJie PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

ciousness. To hold one's faith in suspense until trust- 
worthy results are reached in this way is to be without 
the benefit of necessary religious guidance in this life. 

(15) The Samaritan Pentateuch, agreeing substan- 
tially with that of the Jews, and not to be dated much 
later than Nehemiah's time, is at once a tangible and 
an insuperable obstacle to a theory that would refer the 
compilation and introduction of the Hexateuch to this 
same period of conflict and perverse antipathies.^ 

(16) It is still too early to decide what will be the 
final outcome of Egyptian and Assyrian discoveries in 
their bearing on the composition of the Pentateuch. 
The parallels in the latter tongue to the history in 
Genesis, though some centuries older in their present 
form than the Books of Nehemiah and Ezra, make no 
pretence to being contemporaneous records. They are 
clearly copies, and like extant manuscripts of the New 
Testament are valid, independent witnesses for a period 
long anterior to themselves. So much, accordingly, 
may be safely inferred from the testimony of the monu- 
ments : that not a little of the material contained in the 
early part of Genesis, including narratives of both the 
leading documents, was in circulation long before the 
time of Moses, and not simply as traditional germs, but 
in detailed form, in the biblical order and with its 
blending of supposed different accounts.^ 

1 It is not necessary to suppose that the Samaritan recension is of earlier date than the 
exile; although it is impossible to prove that it is not. It might be even conceded that the 
Samaritans took it bodily from the copy that began to circulate at Jerusalem after the 
return from the exile. But the fact that it is the Pentateuch and not the Hexateuch, and 
that the history of Joshua was subsequently current among them in another form, is quite 
sufficient to show that, already, at this time, the " Law of Moses " had attained to at least 
semi-canonical rank by itself and was invested with a peculiar sanctity. 

- Lenormant thinks the Chalda;aa narrative of the deluge is not less than thirty-five 
hundred years old {The Bcgiunings of History, p. 392). Contrary to the view of Bickell 
{Zeitschrift filr Katholische Thcologie, 1877, pp. 129-131) and Abb<6 Vigouroux {La 
Bible et Ics decouvertcs inoderucs, 2d ed. i. pp. 165, 190, 251-254), however, 
he maintains that the Chaldajan record confirms " in a decisive manner the distinction 



Historical Sketch of the Criticism. 83 

List of Passages claimed by Wellhausen to belong to 
THE "Priests^ Code": — 

Genesis 1.-11.4^; v. (ex. 29); vi. 9-22; vii. ii-viii. 5 (ex. vii. 
12, i6c, 17, 22, 23, viii. 2b), 13, 19; ix. 1-17, 28, 29; x. 1-7, 20, 
22, 23, 31, 32; xi. 10-32 (ex. 29) ; xii. 4b, 5 ; xiii. 6, lib, 12; xvi. 
3, 15, 16; xvii. ; xix. 29; xxi. 2b-5 ; xxiii. ; xxv, 7-17 (ex. lib), jc), 
20, 26c; xxvi. 34, 35; xxvii. 46-xxviii. 9; xxix. 24, 28b, 29 (?) ; 
x-xxi. 18 (in part) ; xxxv. 9-15 (vs. 9 impure), 22^-29; xxxvi. 6-8, 
40-43; xxxvii. I, 2 (partly) ; xlvi. 6, 7, 8-27 (?) ; xlvii. 5-1 1 (ex. 
6b), 27b, 28; xlviii. y-^ \ xlix. 28 (?), 29-33; 1. 12, 13. 

Exodus i. I, 5, 7 (in part), 13, 14 (partly) ; ii. 23 (in part), 24, 
25; vi. 2-vii. 13, 19, 20a, 21C, 22, 23; viii. 1-3, iib-15; ix. 8-12; 
xi. 9, 10 (certain expressions); xii. 1-21, 28, 37^,40, 41, 43-51; 
xiii. I, 2, 20; xiv. I, 2, 4 (partly), 8b, 9 (partly), 10, 15 (partly), 
28 (?) ; x\'i. 1-3, 9-13^, i6b-i8a, 22-26,31-34, 35a; xvii. i (ex. last 
clause); xix. i, 2a; xxiv. I5b-i8a; xxv. i-xxxi. 17, 18 (Elohistic 
but doubtful) ; xxxiv. 29-32, 33-35 (? "ein apokryphisches Anhang- 
sel ") ; xxxv.-xl. 

Leviticns (including the unique collection xvii. -xxvii.). 

Numbers i. i-x. 28; xiii. i-i7a, 21, 25, 26 (mostly), 32 
(partly) ; xiv. i, 2 (fragments of them), 5-7, 10, 26, 27, 28 (last 
two in doubt), 34-36; xv. ; xvi. i, 2 (partly), 8-1 1, 16-22, 35 ; xvii.- 
XX. id, 2, 3b, 6, 12, 22-29; x^i- 4^ io» II i?^ doubtfully) ; xxv. 6- 
xxxi. ; xxxii. 16, 17 (partly), 18, 19, 24, 28-33; xxxiii. -xxxvi. (ex. 
xxxiii. 50-56, " lassen ein fremdes Element in O erkennen"). 

between the two accounts, Elohist and Jehovist, cast together by the last redactor of the 
Pentateuch. Taking each account separately and parallelizing them, the Chaldaean nar- 
rative is found to agree with each one individually, in every step of its course, and not 
with the result of their union." But if the Chaldaean inscription agree with each one 
individually, it certainly proves (i) the contemporaneousness of both the accounts in 
Genesis at the time when the Chaldaean record was made. And (2) it shows, conclusively, 
that if we have two accounts of the deluge combined in Genesis, they may have been 
combined as far back as the time of Abraham, since we have an example from about thai 
period of the story as thus put together in the Chaldaean language. Lenormant affirms 
that the Chaldaean account agrees with the Jehovist and Elohist, respectively, but not 
with the result of their union. Does he mean that it does not harmonize the alleged dis- 
crepancies between the two? But suppose there are no such discrepancies. It is enough 
that it gives in one continuous narrative what our critics separate in Genesis into two 
distinct narratives. For example, if it agree with the Jehovist document in the account it 
gives of the occasion for the flood (Gen. vi. 5, 8), it agrees with the Elohist equally in 
assigning dimensions to the ark (Gen. vi. 15). It makes its Hasisatra sacrifice after the 
flood is over as the Jehovist alone makes Noah (Gen. viii. 20), and it shows how its hero 
was subsequently blessed of the gods as alone the Elohist relates that Noah was blessed of 
Elohim (Gen. ix. i-ii). 



84 The PentatciLch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Deuteronoiny xxxii. 48-52 (compares with Num. xxvii. 12-23) » 
xxxiv. I a, 7a (?), 8, 9. 

Joshua iv. 19 (" whether a fragment of a once complete narra- 
tive very questionable ") ; V. 10-12; ix. 15c, 17-21; xiii. 15; xiv. 5 
(including xviii. i, said to belong before xiv. i) ; xv. (except 13-19 
and some others) ; xvi. 4-8 ; xvii. 1-4, 7, 9 (partly) ; xviii. 1,1-25 \ 
xix. (ex. 47,49, 50, and possibly more, together with enumeration of 
the cities) ; xx. (with additions) ; xxi. 1-42 ; xxii. 9-34.^ 

1 Cf. Jahrbi'icher fur deutsche Theologie, 1876, Band xxi. 392-450, 531-602. For 
further explanation of the supposed relation of PC to the documents with which it is asso- 
ciated see the beginning of the next paper. It did not seem needful in the present work to 
set forth in detail the textual contents of JE and D. For the purposes of our argument 
they can be inferred with sufficient accuracy by subtracting, in accordance with the data 
elsewhere given, those of PC from the text of the Bible as we now have it. 



III. 

THE PROPOSED ANALYSIS OF THE LAW TESTED 
IN ITS LEADING PRINCIPLES. 



The Hexateuch, as analyzed by Wellhausen and the 
class of critics he represents, may be formulated as 
follows : JE + D + HG + PC (Q) + R. This formula 
will be found convenient for reference, as well as to 
present to the eye the relative order of the codes 
according to this system. 

At the risk of repetition, it may be well to explain 
here, somewhat more in detail, this analysis. 

The letters JE stand severally for a Jehovist and an 
Elohist document, the former beginning at Genesis ii. 
4^ ; the latter at Genesis xx. These are claimed to be 
the oldest documents of the Bible ; but the question of 
their relative age is not specially mooted. The germ 
of J is the so-called Book of the Covenant (Exodus 
xx.-xxiii., xxxiv.), though, with this exception, it is in 
the main an historical work. It arose, it is said, in the 
period of the earlier Hebrew kings and prophets. E is 
a similar historical work which, after circulating like its 
companion document, separately for a time, — according 
to Wellhausen each passed through three editions in 
this separate form, — was united to J by the Jehovist, 
who also revised and edited to some extent. D repre- 
sents the legislative portions of Deuteronomy, originat- 
ing in the eighteenth year of King Josiah (b.c. 621), 
the chapters preliminary and following being added at 



S6 TJie Pentateuch : Its Orizin and Stntcture. 



a considerably later period. HG (that is, Heiligkeits- 
gesetZy law of holiness) is used for chapters xvii.-xxvi. 
of Leviticus, which were composed, it is maintained, at 
about the time of Ezekiel, although not by him. 
Q {qiiatnor foederuin libei) is the great historical and 
legislative work beginning the Bible, and like E 
peculiar in its predominant use of Elohim as a name 
for God, and embracing very nearly one half of the 
entire Hexateuch. PC is the symbol for "Priests' 
Code," the name given to Q after receiving, from time 
to time, the various additions made to it, up to the 
period of its completion subsequent to the exile. The 
letter R stands for Redactor, the person who combined 
JE and D with PC. He is assumed to have had the 
style of the document last named, and to have done his 
work wholly in its spirit. The Hexateuch, having thus 
been brought essentially to the form in which it is 
now found, was published and introduced by Ezra 
(B.C. 444). 

Each of these letters or combination of letters, it will 
be seen, — except the last, — ■ represents a different 
stage of the legislation ; JE having for its nucleus the 
Book of the Covenant, which is followed by the Deuter- 
onomic code, and that in succession by Leviticus xvii.- 
xxvi., and the remaining priestly legislation of the 
middle books of the Pentateuch. 

The method adopted by Wellhausen to prove that 
these collections of laws do actually represent different 
so-called stratifications, which took form in the widely 
separated periods indicated in our note, is twofold. 
First, he endeavors to show that, when compared, there 
is evidence of a marked development in these several 
parts of the legislation themselves in the direction 
named : that is, from JE toward PC. Second, he calls 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 8y 

attention to the impression left by the laws on the 
historical books of the Old Testament, — not excepting 
the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, — and claims 
that the history most readily adapts itself to" such 
a theory of the post-Mosaic development of the codes. 
Under the first head five particulars are specially dwelt 
upon : (i) the place of worship ; (2) the sacrifices ; 
(3) the feasts ; (4) the priests and Levites ; (5) the 
provision made for the support of priests and Levites. 

The object of the present paper will be to discover, if 
possible, what fair conclusion may be drawn from an 
examination and comparison of these several collections 
of laws on the points named. Is such a theory of 
development as is proposed a necessary or legitimate 
outcome of a really candid and critical investigation ? 
Adopting Wellhausen's order, let us consider the atti- 
tude of these laws as it respects 

(i) T/ie Place of Worship. — - The position here 
assumed is that there are three successive steps in 
the growth of the idea and practice among the 
Israelites ^ of worshiping at one central sanctuary, 
and that these three steps are distinctly marked off in 
three principal codes of the Pentateuch. In JE, for 
example, a plurality of altars, it is alleged, is freely per- 
mitted. In D, however, which represents the point of 
view of King Josiah who struck ''the first heavy 
blow" against this practice, unity of worship is every- 
where insisted on. While in PC such unity of worship 
is presupposed as a thing of the past, and by means of 
the fiction of the tabernacle referred to the very earliest 
times. This in brief is the theory. 

As to the question how it fits the legislation, Well- 
hausen, it is noticeable, instead of coming directly to 
the point, devotes a dozen pages to a summary of the 



88 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

teachings of the historical books on the subject. By 
giving to exceptions which he there finds the force of 
established rules, misapprehending and misapplying 
some plain statements of fact, and wholly setting aside 
the testimony of the author of the Books of Kings, — 
with whom he acknowledges himself to be in open con- 
flict, — this critic is able to affirm that this was "the 
actual course of the centralization of the cultus ; one 
can distinguish these three stages." ^ And it is only 
after such a manipulation of the history, in which Well- 
hausen is able to find, previous to the building of 
Solomon's temple, no trace of a central sanctuary, 
that he makes his appeal to the Pentateuch legislation. 
What, now, is the bearing of this legislation on the 
subject before us .? Does it, in itself considered, justify 
or encourage the hypothesis of an extended process of 
development from the custom of many contempora- 
neous altars to the one sanctuary } After a reasonably 

1 Geschichte, i. p. 29. It can only be regarded, for example, as a serious misapprehen- 
sion of facts when {Geschichte, i. p. 18) in citing instances of extemporized places of 
worship he refers to the conduct of Saul as recorded in i Sam. xiv. 33-36 (Hebrew text as 
throughout) as an instructive one of the kind. There is not the slightest indication in the 
text that the stone on which the people slew the captured cattle was regarded by Saul as 
a7i altar for sacrifice ; or that the writer of the book referred to it in the words which 
this critic puts into his mouth: " That is the first altar which Saul had built to God." 

Hoffmann {Magazinftlr die Wissenschaft des Jjidoithnms, 1879, p. g f.), after call- 
ing attention to the fact that as well the Septuagint as the Syriac version support 
the Hebrew text, remarks: ** Danach wird also der grosse Stein, auf dem das Volk 
geschlachtet, keineswegs vom Berichterstatter fiir einen Altar gehalten, sondern nachdem 
das Volk bereits das Vieh geschlachtet, baute Saul, wahrscheinlich zum Andenken an 
den errungenen Sieg (vgl. Exod. 17. 15), daselbst einen Altar. Es ware auch kurios, 
wenn der Berichterstatter vom dem Steinc, den das Volk zn Saul hingewalzt (v. 33) 
behaupten wollte: dies sei der erstc Altar, den Saul gcbaut ! ! Die Stelle beweist nun 
wieder das Gegentheil von dem, was sie beweisen sollte. Saul ist nur darob entriistet, das 
Volk znr Erde geschlachtet und mit dem Blute oder Yiber dem Blute gegessen, und 
befiehlt, dass Alle nebem ilun auf einem grossen Steine schlachten"" 

Cf. also Sime, Kingdom 0/ All Is., p. 72. 

Of the author of the Books of Kings Wellhausen says {ibid. pp. 20, 21) : " Aber dicse 
BetrachtungLweise des Bedeutungs des Konigthums fiir die Geschichte des Cultus ist 
nicht die des Verfassers der Konigsblicher. . . . Diese Auffassung nun ist ungeschicht- 
lich und Ubertragt die Bedeutung, die der Tempel kurz vor dem Exil in Juda eriangt hat, 
in die Zeil und in die Absicht seiner Griindung." 



TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. S9 

careful examination one is forced to reply with 
a decided negative. He will find, on the contrary, 
each one of the codes not only implying unity of 
worship, but even requiring it ; and that no part of 
the legislation of the Pentateuch gives the least color 
to any other practice. Such a scholar as Delitzsch 
cannot have overlooked essential facts, and this is the 
conclusion also to which he has come : '' In truth, the 
Deuteronomic demand for unity of the cultus is no 
novelty, but a demand of the whole Torah in all its 
constituent parts." ^ 

The position taken by our critics may be successfully 
assailed, and with almost equal force, from two quar- 
ters. It is not true that JE permits a contempora- 
neous plurality of altars; it is not true that PC 
presupposes unity of worship as something already 
established in the history of Israel. If the several 
codes, as here divided and adjusted, represent a 
growth at all in the matter, — which we do not believe, 
— it is in D, and not in PC, that we find the climax. 
In nearly a score of instances, within half that number 
of chapters, attention is called to the topic, and a 
special emphasis is given by a repetition of the same 
peculiar form of words (Deut. xii. 5, et passim). And 
what could be more fitting in a document professedly 
looking backward on more than a generation of trans- 
gression and lawlessness covering in part this very 
ground (Deut. xii. 8), and looking forward to an imme- 
diate transition from a life in camp to the conquest and 
occupation of the promised land 1 

As it concerns PC, so far is it from presupposing, as 
is affirmed, a central place of worship as something 
long established, it makes scarcely any allusion to 

1 Zeitschriftfur kirchliche Wissenschaft, etc. 1880, p. 562. 



go The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnccttire. 

a place of worship in this particular aspect of the 
matter ; and as it relates to the holy land, with which 
it is supposed this code had alone to do, it wholly 
ignores the subject. Even in its law concerning the 
Passover, where, if anywhere, it might have been 
expected that this point would be emphasized, it is 
given no observable prominence. The tabernacle 
itself, about which all this form of the legislation may 
be said to gather, has for its direct object in no sense 
the furnishing of a central point for sacrifice. Its first 
object, rather, as its name "tent of meeting" imports, 
was to provide a place for God to meet his people. It 
is true that also in this part of the Mosaic laws all are 
expected, under penalty of the loss of citizenship, to 
bring their sacrifices to this " tent of meeting " (Lev. 
xvii. 8, 9).i As long as the wilderness life continued, 
this was the only natural and warrantable course for a 
people who, instead, of the many gods of the nations, 
had one Lord (Deut. vi. 4). But iteration and empha- 
sis on this point was left for a sufficient reason, as we 
have seen, to Deuteronomy. Whatever culminating 
point there may be, it will be found there. 

But does not the tabernacle, on the possible hypothe- 
sis that in its fundamental conception it is a product of 
the post-exilian period, whether one regard it as a tent 
of meeting or a place for sacrifice (that is, as a sanctuary 
from the divine or the human side), if it be transferred 

1 Kittel {Theologische StudieiL aiis IVurtemberg, 1881, pp. 41, 42) has pointed out 
the fact that this very passage is evidence against the position that in PC unity of worship 
is altogether presupposed; and ha cites Wellhausen himself as saying {Gcschichte,i. ^. 
389), "Die ortliche Einheit des Gottesdienstes wird hier noch gefordert, nicht voraus- 
gesetzt." It is true that he considers the passage as one that found its way into PC 
through revision; but this postpones the difficulty without solving it. Why should a 
reviser, working in the spirit of the document he is revising, have put in such an inhar- 
monious sentiment? Kittel has also adduced the rebellion of Korah (Num^xvi. 8-1 1) as 
further evidence, from whatever point of view it may be legarded, that PC is far enough 
from having to do simply with matters of worship already brought to a conclusion 
(I.e. p. 39). 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 91 

by its fabricators to the Mosaic age, in the nature of 
the case presuppose on their part a centraKzation of 
the cultus in their own time ? By no means. The 
most that it could show, supposing it to represent cen- 
tralization of worship, would be that they wished to 
have it understood that this was the form of worship 
which prevailed in the far past. And we can have no 
logical claim even to that inference. As I have already 
shown in the introductory paper, on the supposition 
of a pure invention one has nothing substantial to 
build upon. "Ex nihilo nihil fit." These facile inven- 
tors may have had a dozen reasons for their course 
unknown to us. It is only by showing from wholly 
independent and reliable sources what motives must 
have influenced them, that we have any right to speak 
with assurance of such motives. 

How is it then with JE ? There is but a single pas- 
sage in its code on which much reliance is placed to show 
its position in this matter (Ex. xx. 24), and it reads as 
follows: "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, 
and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy 
peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen : in every 
place ^ where I record my name I will come unto thee, 

1 ^J/with the article undoubtedly conveys the idea of totality, but as far as the real 
sense here is concerned it makes no difference whether this phrase be rendered, with Dill- 
mann {Co>n., in loc), Bunsen's Bibelwerk, and Wellhausen {^Geschichte, i. p. 30), " in 
every place," or with our common English version, " in all places." The meaning doubt- 
less is " in that place, wherever it be," where God should cause his name to be remem- 
bered, there he would receive and own the offerings of his people. There is a similar 
collocation of words at Gen. xx. 13. The really important part of the verse, as I have 
said above, lies in the words "where I record my name," or, "cause my name to be 
remembered." It is of interest that the Targums give this clause here the sense of" cause 
my name to dwell," that is, they apparently identify the place with the tabernacle (cf. Ex. 
xxiv. 16; XXV. 8; xxix. 46; Num. ix. 17; Deut. xii. 11, et passim) . The Samaritan Penta- 
teuch, on the other hand, read, though probably as a correction, for " in every place," " in 
the place," making the matter still more definite. The objection of Wellhausen to the 
view that the tabernacle is referred to is that the altar here described is not the altar of 
the tabernacle. Nor is the tabernacle yet in existence, it maybe replied; but when it 
came into existence it came under this law and itiduded this altar. The objections 



92 The PentateiLcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

and I will bless thee." And it may safely be submitted 
to any one, without discussion, whether this passage, 
taken by itself, encourages sacrificing at many altars at 
one and the same time, or gives to every Israelite dis- 
cretionary powers to offer his sacrifices when and 
where he will ? 

The vital point of the verse, which has been much 
obscured by making an issue on the phrase "in every 
place," is contained in the words "where I shall cause 
my name to be remembered." This expression, while 
not positively excluding the possibility that there might 
be more than one authorized place of worship at the 
same time, can by no means be cited as giving legisla- 
tive authority for the establishment of a multitude of 
contemporaneous altars. Such a thought must be first 
read into the verse, in order to be deduced from it. And 
it cannot be denied that it might with at least equal 
justice, in harmony with the common and traditional 
view, be understood as implying that in the lapse of 
time the place of worship would be often changed, but 
that the presence and blessing of God would make any 
place sacred for this purpose. 

That this is, in fact, the real meaning of the words 
may be amply proved, from a variety of considerations. 

which Dillmann {ibid.) brings against this view, while acknowledging it to be the ordinary 
one, are far from convincing. The most important of them, that since Jehovah was 
understood to dwell in the tabernacle, he could not properly be spoken of as coming to it, 
is sufficiently answered by a passage which he himself cites (2 Sam. vii. 6 f ), where God 
is represented as saying, " I have not dwelt in a house . . . even unto this day, but have 
walked in.a tent and in a tabernacle." And in the following verse the places are spoken 
of in which he had walked with Israel. Hence tlie meaning in our passage of the " every 
place "where he should cause his name to be remembered is such places as he should 
come to — not apart from, but in connection with, the tabernacle. One's confidence in the 
view that the passage at least refers to one central, well-known altar, and not to many 
contemporaneous ones will not be weakened by the fact that it is held, among others, by 
such scholars as Hoffmann {Magazinfiir die IVissenschaft des yude7ithu)iis, 1879, pp. 
17, 18), Franz Delitzsch (1. c. pp. 562, 563), Strack (in Herzog's Eucyk. s.7>. " Penta- 
teuch''), Bredenkamp (^Gcseiz u. Prophcten, pp. 129-139), and Riehm {^Gcsctzgcbuns 
Mosis im Lande Moah, p. 25 f.). 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 93 

First, it would be remarkable, if a plurality of altars 
were meant, that the singular number is used, and that 
we do not find here, or anywhere else in this document, 
the expression ''altars of God," although the author is 
familiar enough with the many altars of the heathen 
(Ex. xxxiv. 13). The usage corresponds, in fact, to the 
fundamental conception of the Old Testament religion 
as everywhere strongly monotheistic, as over against 
a radical tendency in another direction. 

Then, according to Wellhausen, JE represents a 
period of Israelitish history so early that the idea of 
centralizing the worship had not yet found its way into 
the cultus ; and this opinion he thinks is confirmed by 
our passage. But suppose that in this very document 
the precise contrary appears, shall not that fact 
modify one's views of this verse } Such is really the 
case. Not only is the matter of centralizing worship 
recognized, but enjoined by statute. Others have 
already pointed out that the offering of Abraham on 
the distant Moriah — a narrative assigned by our critics 
to this earliest document (E^) — was an evident fore- 
shadowing of the future place of Israelitish worship.^ 
And does not the Ark of the Covenant — that is, the 
depository of the first covenant made with Israel, 
including the decalogue, and so in conception indissolu- 
bly bound to the code of JE — point most conclusively 
in the same direction t 

But I have said that the matter was even fixed by 
statute. How otherwise can we interpret the injunc- 
tion to Israel (Ex. xxiii. 14 ff. ; xxxiv. 23) that three 
times in the year, at the great annual feasts, all males 
shall appear before the Lord t It is not possible that 
the point of view of such a command should be that of 

1 Cf. Delitzsch in Riehm's Handworterbuch, s.v, " Opfer." 



94 TJic Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structttre. 

a plurality of altars. They are excluded by the very 
terms employed in it. Besides, it should not be over- 
looked that the theory of our critics touching JE brings 
that document into direct antagonism with D. The 
former would thus establish by law what the latter 
emphatically prohibits. And, so far from attempting 
to conceal such divergence, pains are taken rather 
by our critics to display it, as furthering the view of 
their separate origin. But whenever they originated, 
it is unquestionable that D sustains the most intimate 
relations to JE, largely borrowing from it both the form 
and substance of its entire code. And no one is more 
ready to acknowledge this than our critics themselves.^ 
D even quotes in its additions an apposite part of the 
very passage we are now considering (Ex. xx. 25 ; cf. 
Deut. xxvii. 5, 6). How unlikely, then, would be the 
supposed diversity on a point of so much importance 
as that of the place of worship. Greater fulness and 
explicitness in this, as in other matters, is indeed 
called for in D ; but flat contradictions or essential 
change of attitude are excluded by the very circum- 
stances of the case. 

Noldeke, also, has pointed out how impossible is the 
theory that makes the unity of the cultus begin with 
D and with King Josiah (b.c. 621). ''If Hezekiah [c. 
B.C. 726] already to a tolerable degree had carried out 
this unity in Judah, the effort toward it must have 
been quite old ; for one cannot so easily have made up 
his mind to suppress violently old and sacred customs 
if the theory had not long since demanded it." ^ 

(2) TJie Ojferings. — Wellhausen introduces his chap- 
ter on the offerings with the remark that, as among the 
ancients generally, so among the Hebrews, the offering 

1 Cf. W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament, etc. p, 431. 

2 Untersuchu7ig zur Kritik d. Alt. Test. p. 127 f. 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 95 

was the chief factor in their cultus ; and that, as already 
shown in the matter of the place of worship, so it 
might be regarded as probable also here that one 
would find a historic development whose different 
stages are reflected in the Pentateuch. He intimates, 
however, that the results in the present case may not 
be as satisfactory as could be desired, owing to the 
fragmentary nature of the documents. Still, judging 
from the number of instances brought forward in proof 
of such development, and the apparent confidence with 
which they are urged, this modest beginning can be 
regarded as meaning little more than the polite bow 
before the address. 

In examining these further supposed evidences of 
growth in the Pentateuch, it is to be carefully borne 
in mind that it is not needful for one holding the 
ordinary view to show that this alleged evidence does 
not exist, or even that it might not be convincing, pro- 
vided that certain necessary premises of Wellhausen 
and his co-laborers respecting the several documents 
were to be admitted ; but only that no such evidence, 
if carefully weighed, seriously militates against the 
commonly accepted position. The remark of Professor 
Curtiss ^ on the difficulty of meeting our critics on 
their own terms derives its force, as he has shown, 
entirely from the peculiar difficulty of the terms they 
impose. It is really saying, " Let me have the prem- 
ises, and you shall admit my conclusion." And if, for 
the time being, we adopt as a working-basis these 
premises to test the correctness of results derived 
from them, it is by no means to be taken as an aban- 
donment of positions hitherto held. 

The more important specifications of Wellhausen 

1 Ciirrent Dz'scussiotis, etc. 1883, p. 35. 



96 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strzictnre. 

under the present head may be arranged as follows : 
According to JE the practice of sacrificing sprung up 
before the time of Moses ; according to PC, it was 
introduced by him. Both JE and D represent the 
offerings simply as festive meals ; PC makes them 
include, to a greater or less extent, the idea of atone- 
ment. That is to say, the earlier documents know in 
general only of the two kinds of offering, the burnt 
and peace offering ; the " Priests' Code," while speci- 
fying various details of the other offerings, adds to the 
list the sin and trespass offering, of which, it is 
affirmed, the Old Testament, previous to the time of 
Ezekiel, knows nothing. The latest code differs, 
further, in a variety of minute particulars, and in 
general, as over against the to whom of JE, insists on 
the when, the where, the throzcgh whom, and especially 
on the how, of the sacrifices. By means of the gradual 
centralization of the cultus at Jerusalem, this critic 
would have us understand, in short, that the early and 
natural connection of sacrifices with the ordinary life 
was destroyed, and they wholly lost their original 
character. 

Taking up, now, these general positions, and begin- 
ning with the first particular mentioned, it may well 
be asked if it be a quite fair statement of the case to 
say that, while JE represents the custom of sacrificing 
as springing up before Moses, PC makes it begin with 
him } If it be meant, as we suppose, that PC, in fail- 
ing to speak of sacrificing as practised before the 
time of Moses, would reflect unfavorably on its com- 
panion document which gives instances of it, then we 
must characterize it as a wholly gratuitous assumption. 
There is nothing whatever in the letter or spirit of the 
documents to encourage, or even suggest, it. Indeed, 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 97 

what could be more improbable than such an omission 
for this reason, on the part of those to whom the con- 
tents of JE could not have been unknown ? Or even, 
if that were not meant, but only that the one docu- 
ment, because of an independent point of view, begins 
the treatment of the subject with Moses, while the 
other begins it with Cain and Abel for the same 
reason, — then we might well ask, in view of the 
acknowledged fragmentary nature of the documents, 
what of it ? And still more forcibly, on the basis of 
the ordinary view, which would find no inconsistency in 
the circumstance that one part of the same w^ork takes 
up and develops a subject introduced in another, — 
what of it ? 

Besides, has not the difference that is alleged to 
exist between the documents in this respect been, to 
say the least, somewhat overdrawn ? So it appears 
to us. The one represented by JE cannot be said to 
lay any stress whatever on the matter of sacrificing. 
It is something made wholly incidental to the history. 
If there be a divergence, it is reduced to a minimum. 
JE never introduces, for example, the leading patri- 
archs as accustomed to sacrifice. Altars, it is true, 
are mentioned in connection with them, but mostly 
on occasions of simple prayer.^ 

Moreover, were the difference charged a matter of 
fact, there would be many ways of explaining, even 
from our critics' own point of view, more reasonable 
than the one adopted. It might be supposed, as 
already intimated, that the extant patriarchal document 
actually contained only the few instances of worship 
by sacrifice found in JE. Must PC then repeat these, 
or formally recognize them, in order to give such an 

1 Cf. Delitzsch, s.v. *' Opfer," in Riehm's Handworterbuch. 



98 The Pentateuch : Its Origi?i and Structure. 

appearance of harmony that no one could possibly 
doubt it ? Or it might be supposed that the contents 
of PC were designed in this respect to supplement 
what has been aptly and harmoniously introduced by 
JE. Or, still again, the two documents may have been 
left in this somewhat abrupt attitude, as over against 
one another, in order to distinguish between two really 
different, though conterminous, periods in the history of 
sacrifice : the first marking the fact that it was the 
spontaneous product of an inward need of men ; the 
second, that it had been taken up, like some other old- 
time usages, by the Mosaic legislation, given the form 
and stamped with the spirit of the religion of Jehovah. 
What, indeed, could be more in harmony than this with 
the general position of our critics on the matter of 
development ? Any one of these suppositions would 
be quite sufficient to account for the line of demarca- 
tion se]3arating JE and PC as respects the matter of 
sacrifice, supposing it to exist ; and they would be far 
more reasonable and probable than that of an inten- 
tional and invidious omission on the part of the 
'' Priests' Code " or of an omission implying even 
a difference of literary plan. 

But, as a matter of fact, we are prepared to go 
further and deny that, otherwise than in the imagina- 
tion of the critics, the distinction between the docu- 
ments predicated exists. Does PC, for example, 
really represent that the custom of sacrificing is exclu- 
sively of Mosaic origin } The contrary can certainly 
be maintained. It will be allowed to cite here the code 
of laws represented by HG (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.), which, 
originating, as it is held, during the exile, should have 
a solidarity of interest in this respect with PC. At 
Leviticus xvii. 5 a custom of sacrificing in the open 



The Proposed Analysis Tested, 99 

fields is referred to in the way of condemnation, and 
a direct Mosaic law given to prohibit it in future. 
Does not this presuppose a usage of sacrificing that 
was pre-Mosaic ? Besides PC itself, as Hoffmann ^ has 
shown, discriminates between those forms of sacrifice 
mentioned in JE and such as it has introduced for the 
first time. In the latter case, the occasions calling 
them forth are carefully described ; in the former, this 
is omitted, apparently as something already understood, 
and so unnecessary. In the same direction, too, points 
the circumstance that a number of technical terms 
seem to have come over from the pre-Mosaic usage in 
sacrificing, and still to have held their place, side by 
side with the Mosaic, even when precisely similar 
things are meant. 

Other special points of difference alleged to exist 
between JE and PC will require less attention. It is 
claimed, for instance, that PC first introduces the sin 
and trespass offering with their idea of atonement, and 
that the late origin of this document may accordingly be 
inferred, when it is considered that the earliest appear- 
ance of these offerings elsewhere is in the prophecy of 
Ezekiel. That this form of offering, we answer, as 
afterward developed in the Mosaic legislation and under 
the technical name of sin-offering, was common in the 
patriarchal period, no one would care to aflirm. That, 
however, the original burnt-offering included it. in its 
fundamental conception, there can be no just doubt. As 
it concerns the time of its introduction as technically 
a sin-offering, it is clear that Hosea, near the beginning 
of the eighth century B.C., mentions it as such, and 
that the author of Isaiah liii. 10 alludes to it, and that 
it is introduced as something well known in the fortieth 

1 Magazmfur die Wisseiischaft des JudefUhujns, 1879, p. 90 fif. 



lOO The Pentateuch: Its Orio-in and Structure. 



'^ 



psalm (vs. 7) — a psalm whose superscription ascribes 
it to David, and whose composition neither Hitzig nor 
Ewald ventures to date after about the sixth century 
B.C. These instances are quite enough to disprove the 
sweeping assertion of Wellhausen ^ respecting the date 
of the sin-offering, — not to mention 2 Kings xii. 16, 
where "the trespass-money and sin-money " most natu- 
rally refer to that which was voluntarily handed by the 
people to the ministering priest on the occasion of such 
sacrifices.^ If the reference in Kings be not to the sin- 
offering, but fines in money are alone meant, — the 
priest receiving the whole sum, — then our critics are 
forced to the unwelcome conclusion that PC in its 
legislation actually diminishes by so much the former 
revenue of the priests. 

But our attention is invited to a number of minor 
particulars which are said to show most conclusively 
that the "Priests' Code" is a much younger docu- 
ment than those with which it is associated. It is 
asserted, for example, that previous to Jeremiah (vi. 20) 
the practice of offering incense, which PC enjoins, is 
not alluded to in the biblical books.^ Suppose that this 
were true, it v^ould be a matter of no great importance, 
and might be wholly ascribed to accident. The wine 
of the drink-offering, too, fails to find mention in the 
earlier prophets, excepting Joel, who is no longer 
allowed a place among them (but cf. Ps. xvi. 4). And 
the same is true of the oil, save in one place in Micah 
(vi. 7). The simple reason in each case was that there 
was no special occasion for mentioning them. But the 
statement is not strictly true. Isaiah (i. 13), whose 
prophetical activity antedated that of Jeremiah by a 
full century, makes a clear allusion to it ; for he can 

^ Geschichte, i. p. 77. - Sec Thcniiis's Coin., ad he. 

3 See Wellhausen, ibid. i. pp. 67-69. 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. lOi 

mean nothing else by the " incense " of which he 
speaks than the incense offered with the meal -offering. 

Then, it is claimed that the flour used for sacrifice in 
PC and the Chronicles is fine Jlour, while everywhere 
else qemacJi, or ordinary flour, is employed.^ But it 
may well be asked what there is strange in this ? The 
latter word is only twice introduced in such a connec- 
tion elsewhere altogether (Judges vi. 19; i Sam. i. 24) ; 
and how can it be regarded as peculiar in the circum- 
stances that in these cases the ordinary word for flour 
should be used, without qualifying it, as Abraham 
already does in JE (Gen. xviii.) by adding that fine flour 
is meant ? The word for fine fiour must have been an 
old Hebrew word, and might certainly have been used 
if found fit and convenient. 

Again, it is claimed that according to PC the flour 
for sacrifices was preferred in a raw state, while the 
earlier usage, even in the case of burnt-offerings, was 
first to bake it.^ But it is a claim that has no real 
documentary support. Outside of the wholly excep- 
tional instance of Gideon's extemporized sacrifice 
(Judges vi. 19 f.) there is no evidence that the flour 
used in connection with the burnt-offering was ever 
baked ; while in the matter of the meal-offering the 
practice in PC is far from uniform (Ex. xxix. ; Lev. ii. ; 
Ezek. xlvi. 14). Wellhausen was plainly misled by the 
account in Ezek. xlvi. 20, confounding the portion eaten 
by the priests with that offered to the Lord. 

Of the same nature is the alleged circumstance that 
according to the earlier codes all flesh used for sacri- 
fices must first be boiled, while according to PC it was 
to be offered raw.^ There is not a syllable enjoining 
siLch a rule in the earlier codes. And the entirely 

1 Wellhausen, ibid. p. 69; cf. however, Num. v. 15. 

2 Wellhausen, ibid. p. 71. ^ Wellhausen, ibid. p. 70. 



102 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 

abnormal action of Gideon, just alluded to, is literally 
the only clear example of such a practice. It is not 
supported by the conduct of Eli's sons in i Sam. ii. 
13 £f., since there is no proof that it was their intention 
to offer on the altar boiled flesh. And it is just as 
little supported by a passage cited in D (Deut. xvi. 7 ; 
cf. Ex. xii. 9), as bdshal X\\^xq, means "to roast," and not 
"to boil" (cf. 2 Chron. xxxv. 13), the words "in water " 
or " in milk " being always added when it had the latter 
meaning. Such cases, on the contrary, as that of 
Manoah (Judges xiii. 19 f.) and of Solomon (i Kings 
iii. 4 ; viii. 5) show conclusively that the earlier codes 
knew no such practice as that which has been imputed 
to them. 

But does it not appear from i Sam. x. 3 f. that at 
first it was permitted to use leavened bread upon the 
altar, while at Lev. ii. 1 1 (PC) it is prohibited } ^ The 
loaves here spoken of were not for sacrifice, as is evi- 
dent from the disposition actually made of them (vs. 4). 

Can it not, at least, be said that peace-offerings were 
the predominant form of offerings in the ancient times, 
while in PC one finds them transformed into the whole 
burnt-offering .? 2 Such a representation, we reply, 
scarcely answers to the facts (cf. Gen. viii. 20 ; xxii. 7 ; 
xxxi. 54 ; xlvi. i ; Job i. 5 ; xlii. 8). It may be 
admitted that the whole burnt-offering is made promi- 
nent in the so-called " Priests' Code " ; but to attempt 
to make out in it a special divergence in this respect 
from the other supposed documents would not repay 
the effort. Delitzsch well asks how we should know, 
without PC, how to discriminate between the two as 
altar-gifts, when David, for example, brings "burnt- 
offerings " and "peace-offerings" (2 Sam. xxiv. 25) at 

1 Ibid. p. 77. 2 Ibid. pp. 71-74. 



TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. 103 

the threshing-floor of Arauna ? ''And is not the 'fat 
pieces of the thank-offering ' (i Kings viii. 64) the very 
expression which is furnished by the Elohistic ritual 
(Lev. vi. 5) ? " 1 

What has already been said is more than sufficient to 
show how unsafe it is to draw from the circumstances 
of mere diversity in characteristics any inference con- 
cerning the late origin of the so-called " Priests' Code " 
as related to its associated documents. Undoubtedly, 
if these several parts of the Pentateuch are divided from 
one another and examined singly, it will be found that 
the one named PC does insist more than the others on 
the technicalities of the sacrificial ritual. But could it, 
in the nature of the case, well have been otherwise t 
D announces and carries out a special programme for 
itself, looking in quite another direction ; while JE, 
having altogether so very little to present in the form 
of legislation, might well be excused from entering upon 
such details. The whole Book of the Covenant makes 
but five chapters, over against the main contents of the 
three middle books of the Pentateuch. And our critics 
confess that they are unable to find any traces whatever 
of the earlier Jehovistic work between Ex. xxxiv. and 
Num. x.-xxix. 

Undoubtedly, too, under the influence of the Sinaitic 
legislation, the matter of sacrifices, as we have before 
said, which originally may have been an expression of 
spontaneous human feeling, took a special and fixed 
form as a divinely authorized institution for the highest 
ends ; but there is no satisfactory evidence in this form 
itself that it must have originated subsequent to the 
time of Moses. The monuments of other contempo- 
raneous peoples demonstrate, rather, that, so far from 

1 Cf. s.v. " Opfer " ia Riehm's Haudwdrterbuch. 



I04 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

holding that the highly developed stage represented in 
the Mosaic ritual and its singularly full and exact termi- 
nology is evidence of a later period, we might be 
surprised not to find something like them there. And 
even if we conclude that this Mosaic code is far superior 
to any of its contemporaries, especially in the unity of 
its purpose and its elevated moral tone, that can be no 
reason for rejecting Mosaic authorship on the part of 
those who accept the Bible as a supernatural revelation. 
For that there are persons who are unable to bring 
themselves to believe in supernatural interpositions in 
human history is no reason why one should part with 
his commonsense in seeking to account for the history 
of Israel. 

(3) The Feasts. — The annual feasts of the Jews, as 
is well known, were seven in number, of which four fell 
on the seventh month, and all during the first seven 
months of the year. Three of these were pilgrimage 
feasts (those italicized below), in which it was required 
that every male Israelite should appear with an offering 
before the Lord, and which, in harmony with this 
custom, were commonly designated Chaggim ; while 
the others were known as Moddhim, or simply appointed 
gatherings. The cycle began with the Passover, which 
was followed immediately by the feast of unleavened 
bread ; and these in succession by the feast of zveeks, 
the feast of trumpets, the day of atonement, and the 
feast of tabernacles, whose last day closed the list with 
a solemn assembly. 

It is argued, now, with respect to these feasts, by the 
advocates of the analysis we have been considering, 
that they originated in certain popular festivals cele- 
brating the beginning and close of the agricultural year, 
and that the process of transformation into historical 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 105 

institutions is clearly discoverable in the present Pen- 
tateuch codes. That the feasts, in part, may be based 
on previous usages of the people is, indeed, not only 
quite credible, but might be shown to be, a priori^ 
probable from what we know of other Mosaic institu- 
tions. That they appear, however, in any part of the 
legislation of the Pentateuch in any other form than as 
established ecclesiastical ordinances is, we will venture 
to say, incapable of proof. 

Take, for instance, the two associated feasts of the 
Passover and of unleavened bread, which, according to 
this theory, should be found in JE and D as the open- 
ing harvest festival. There is not a particle of evidence 
in these documents (cf. Ex. xxxiv. 18; Deut. xvi. 1-8) 
that they had any other origin or purpose than to cele- 
brate the exodus from Egypt. That is made in both of 
them their sole occasion. If they had a different origin, 
it is carefully concealed. 

Singularly enough, however, on the basis of this 
theory, we discover in immediate connection with the 
rules for these feasts as found in HG (Lev. xxiii. 4-8 ; 
cf. vs. 9-14) — a document here virtually identical with 
PC — our first and only allusion to a harvest ceremony. 
In this passage, to use the language of Wellhausen, 
'' the special Easter rite is the presentation of a sheaf 
of barley." 

But how can this be made to harmonize with the 
development hypothesis to find the root where the 
bloom should be ; to find in a document which is 
alleged to have arisen in the time of Ezekiel elements 
one would suppose to be out of place anywhere, except 
in the earliest literature } Let Wellhausen, as one of 
its leading advocates, himself explain : " One may 
remind us," he says, " on the other hand, it is true, that 
this passage at present belongs to PC. But the col- 



io6 The PentateiicJi: Its Origin and Structure. 

lection (Lev. xvii.-xxvi), as is well known, was simply 
worked over and received by it ; originally, however, 
was an independent corpus, which stood at the point of 
transition from D to PC, resembling now this and now 
that. And the complete justification [mark the words] 
for making use of Lev. xxiii. 9-22 in this connection 
appears in this, — that only in this way does the rite 
there described take on life and meaning." ^ But the 
question is not concerning making use of Leviticus. 
It is a question why Leviticus alone makes use of such 
a ceremony if the ceremony explains the origin of 
the festival ! 

Nothing needs, however, to be added to this explana- 
tion, except, perhaps, to call attention to a subsequent 
remark of the same critic,^ where he speaks of the same 
rite of Leviticus, together with that of the wave-loaves 
of the feast of weeks and of the booths at the feast of 
tabernacles — all of which things are totally ignored by 
the two documents claimed to be the oldest of the 
Pentateuch — as ''petrified fragments" of the "old 
customs," the faint traces which betray the real sources 
of the development. Indeed, as "petrified fragments" 
of a primitive heathenism one would suppose them to 
be as much out of place in PC as Druidical worship 
would be in St. Paul's Cathedral. 

But there is a marked divergence in the documents, 
it is said, also in their mode of indicating the time of 
celebrating the feasts ; PC giving a definite numerical 
date, while the other two documents speak only in the 
most general terms of the month only. This, according 
to Wellhausen,^ points not only to a fixed, uniform 
regulation of the cultus in the former, but also to an 
essential change of its nature. It is true that the dates 
of the feasts are differently expressed, as it is claimed ; 

1 Gcschichte, i. p. 88, note. ^ jhid. p. 103. ^ Ibid. p. 104. 



TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. 107 

but it is not true that they are any the less definitely 
indicated in the one case than the other. The Pass- 
over, for example, according to JE, was instituted on 
going out of Egypt, and the particular day is assumed 
to be well known. In like manner, in the case of 
the feast of unleavened bread (Ex. xxxiv. 18), not only 
is the month mentioned, but it is implied that the 
particular date had been determined, and was well 
understood ; the original being properly rendered, with 
Bunsen's Bibekuerk, "at the time determined on in 
the month Abib" {in der bestimmten Zeit des Aehren- 
monats). 

The same may be said of D. It not only ordains the 
celebration of the Passover on the ground of the 
deliverance from Egypt, but calls special attention 
(Deut. xvi. 3) to the day to be observed as that of their 
coming forth ; it is that which they are to recall. So, 
too, the date for the observance of the feast of weeks is 
either assumed in the earlier documents to be well 
known, as in JE (Ex. xxiii. 16 ; xxxiv. 22), which is 
familiar also with both the names that are applied to it 
— feast of weeks and feast of harvest ; or it is clearly 
pointed out, as in D (Deut. xvi. 9; cf. Lev. xxiii. 15, 16), 
by means of data which must have been sufficiently 
current or accessible. The reason why a different 
designation for the date is employed in PC may have 
been a desire to provide additional safeguards against 
the confusion that might otherwise have arisen from 
the unsettled state of the calendar at that period ; 
both sun and moon years being probably in use among 
the Israelites already at the time of the exodus. They 
certainly could not have been unknown to them.^ 

^Cf. Hoffmann, ibid. pp. 104, 105; Dillmann, " Ueber Kalenderwesen der Israeliten 
vordem babylon. 'Exil.," Monatsckri/t der konig. Acad. d. Wissenschaft zu Berlin, 
October 27, 1881. 



io8 The Pentateuch: Its OriHn and Structure . 



<> 



It is further objected to the ordinary view of the 
Pentateuch codes, as it respects the feasts, that in D 
(Deut. xvi. 4, 8) the Passover is represented as the first 
day of the feast of unleavened bread, while in PC it is 
assigned to the fourteenth day of the month, a full 
week being afterward devoted to the connected feastj 
beginning with the fifteenth. This is supposed to indi- 
cate an earlier stage of the development. 

The account in Deuteronomy is, indeed, peculiar in 
apparently merging the observance of the Passover 
with that of the feast of unleavened bread. That, 
however, a knowledge of their true relation to one 
another is presupposed is evident from the distinctions 
already found in JE (cf. Ex. xxiii. i8; xxxiv. i8, 25), 
the fact that both names are discriminatingly applied 
(vs. I, 16), and the manner in which the two feasts are 
wrought together. From vs. 4^-7 the Passover is 
clearly referred to in its narrower sense ; while in vs. i 
the appropriate day for slaying the paschal lamb is 
assumed to be known and to have been properly 
observed. And when in vs. 4^ it is said that there 
shall not remain over till the morning any of the flesh 
that was killed on the evening of the first day, it is 
plain that the evening of the fourteenth is meant, and 
not the first day of the following feast, for a variety of 
reasons. This language is directly borrowed from JE 
(Ex. xxiii. 18; xxxiv. 25 ; cf. also Ex. xii. 6, 10; Num. 
ix. 12) in its law of the Passover. It is in closest 
harmony with vs. 7^, where permission is given, after 
the celebratio7i of the Passover, to return to the 
tents — previous, that is, to the observance of the 
accompanying feast. 

That this cannot mean the morning after the first 
day of unleavened bread is obvious from the fact that 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. ■ 109 

such a supposition would be in direct contradiction 
with the following verse, which calls for a solemn clos- 
ing assembly on the seventh day, as also with another 
requirement of this verse, that seven subsequent days, 
including that of the final assembly, are to be devoted 
to the feast of unleavened bread. And what is found 
in vs. 2, where sheep and cattle are spoken of as 
victims for the Passover feast, offers no objection to 
this view. The name Passover is here given to the 
whole series of feasts, as afterward (v. 16) the name 
Mazzoth is applied to it — a usage, moreover, which 
perpetuated itself in New Testament times (Mark xiv. i ; 
Luke xxii. i), and is recognized by Josephus,^ who 
speaks of "the festival of the unleavened bread, which 
is called pascha {apda/jj)'' If there were any doubt on 
this point, it would be settled by the language of vs. 3, 
where the command is given to eat unleavened bread 
for seven days in addition to the Passover ("there- 
unto"), this Hebrew expression referring undoubtedly 
to the Passover proper, as Riehm ^ and Keil ^ have 
pointed out, and having no clear sense on any other 
supposition. 

Still further it is asserted that, while D (in agree- 
ment with I Kings viii. 66 ; cf. Ezek. xlv. 25) assigns 
seven days to the celebration of the feast of taber- 
nacles, PC (2 Chron. vii. 9 agreeing) requires eight. 
But attention may be called to the brevity of treatment 
given the subject in JE and D. The former does not 
even mention the number of days at all (Ex. xxiii. 16 ; 
xxxiv. 22); and D (Deut. xvi. 13-15) devotes to the 
matter but three verses, to ten in Leviticus (xxiii.) and 
twenty-seven in Numbers (xxix.). Marti has made it 
appear probable that the Deuteronomic form of the law 

"^ Antiq. xiv. 2. 2; xvii. 9. 3. 2 Gesetzgehung Mosis im Lande Moab, p. 52. 

3 Com., in loco. 



I lo The Pentateuch : Its Orisrin and Structure. 



is based on that in Leviticus,^ and in one of these 
Levitical forms (vs. 42) nothing is said of an eighth 
day. The special object of D in calling attention to 
this feast, as so often, seems to have been to emphasize 
the unity of the place of worship. Besides, this eighth 
day did not, strictly speaking, belong to the feast of 
the tabernacles, but brought to a close the whole series 
of yearly feasts. And this, further, might well serve 
to account for the circumstance that it is not always 
mentioned in connection with it, either in the codes or 
the history. 

It is worthy of notice, also, that JE and D make no 
allusion to two other feasts of the Jewish year, that of 
trumpets, and the day of atonement. But can it be 
justly a source of objection to the common view of the 
Pentateuch legislation that each one of its codes does 
not cover the precise ground of the others respectively .-' 
Just as little, moreover, can this fact be properly 
employed to support the theory of a later development 
in PC ; since the ground of this difference may have 
been purely accidental. 

Take, for example, the feast of the new moon or 
trumpets. What possible important reason can there 
have been, from any point of view, why notice should 
have been taken of it outside of PC } The nature of 
the feast precludes the conjecture that it is found in 
PC, and there alone, from dogmatic considerations. 
And, on the other hand, the feast of weeks, one of the 
great pilgrimage feasts, finding a place in all the codes, 
receives no notice whatever in the historical books 
before Chronicles (2 Chron. viii. 13). So, too, in the 
entire legislative portions of Deuteronomy there is no 
recognition of the observance of the weekly Sabbath. 

* Jahrbucherfurprot. Thcologic, 1880, p. 349. 



TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. iii 

Could the danger of drawing important conclusions 
respecting the existence of laws and institutions from 
the presence or absence of allusion to them where we 
imagine it should be found be more strikingly ex- 
hibited ? Because one does not find in the Epistles 
a full reproduction of the Gospels, shall that be a 
reason, in so far, for rejecting the Gospels? 

The day of atonement, however, it is claimed, is in 
quite another category. It most naturally, on dog- 
matic grounds, has its origin in the technical, priestly 
legislation of PC ; and that, too, in its latest develop- 
ments subsequent to the exile. Do not codes and his- 
tory alike point to this period for its actual origination ? 

The times of the exile and some centuries later were, 
indeed, peculiar in many respects. But the climax of 
anomalousness would be reached if it were to be sup- 
posed that a law of this nature originated then, a law 
which has for one of its principal objects the cleansing 
of the temple in every part, the temple which either 
still lay in ruins or existed but as a lamentable 
reminder of its former grandeur. Moreover, if it 
originated then, at what precise time did it originate t 
When did the spirit begin to work that finally took 
shape in this elaborate ritual (Lev. xvi. ; xxiii. 26-32 ; 
Num. xxix. 7-1 1)? The Chronicler makes no allusion 
to its observance, and his book carries us far beyond the 
exile. If it did not come up until we find some men- 
tion that it was kept, then we are borne on, too, beyond 
the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, who cannot be so 
readily spared from the council that projected, in times 
subsequent to the exile, a scheme like this. In short, 
the argument from silence here overshoots its mark. 
The silence is unbroken in the historical books of the 
Old Testament. And there is no evidence of its 



112 The Pejttateuch : Its Origin and Structnre. 

celebration till more than a century after the supposed 
introduction of PC in the year B.C. 444. 

Still might we not justly expect some allusion to it 
in the earlier historical books if it were Mosaic? 
There is no more ground for demanding this than there 
would be for demanding express mention of it in the 
post-exilian literature, — especially by the Chronicler, 
if it had its origin at that period. That there is, in 
fact, no point of the Israelitish history previous to the 
exile reviewed in the Bible which really requires special 
notice of it has been sufficiently shown by able writers 
like Hamburger,^ and most conclusively by Delitzsch.^ 
The position which this law holds in PC itself has been 
too much overlooked. It is found in two instances in 
connection with the proclamation of the other feasts 
(Lev. xxiii. ; Num. xxix.), as well as in two others, 
where the remaining ones are not noticed (Lev. xvi. ; 
XXV. 9). And Delitzsch has shown ^ that the whole 
Torah is penetrated by its spirit and formally bound to 
it by minute references in many passages. 

(4) The Priests and Levites. — The hypothesis of our 
critics here, in harmony with their positions as already 
noticed, is that in the earliest periods of Israelitish his- 
tory there was no distinction between priests and lay- 
men : any one might officiate at the altar ; or, if there 
were priests by calling, they were to be found only at 
the more important sanctuaries. Hence JE has noth- 
ing to say of priests. It does not put an Aaron beside 
Moses. In D, too, we still find no radical distinction 
made between priests and Levites ; every Levite is 
eligible to the priesthood. It is only in PC that the 

1 Real-Encyclopadie filr Bibel nnd Tabund, s.z>. 

^ ZeitschriftJ'ur Kirchliche Wisscnschn/t, etc. pp. 171-183. 

^ Ibid. p. 180 f., and in Riehm's Hatidwdrtcrbuch s.v. " Versohnungstag," where he 
says: "Uebrigens abcr ist die ganze priesterliche Gesetzebung von Beziehungen auf diesen 
Generalsuhnlag durchflochten." 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. I13 

separation is fully made — where, moreover, it is repre- 
sented that the priests were never anything else than 
sons of Aaron. This document even goes so far as to 
put at the head of this caste of priests — contrary to 
the whole spirit of the Old Testament elsewhere — a 
high-priest of such prominence and power that the 
person of a theocratic king would be wholly over- 
shadowed beside him. 

It must be said, now, in looking at the documents, 
that the statements concerning JE are but partially 
correct. The Aaronic priesthood as such does not yet 
appear. And why should it ? No one holds to its 
existence before the time of Moses and Aaron ; and 
the sparse fragments of presumed Mosaic legislation 
found in this document leave no sufficient place for its 
introduction. It cannot be said that the manner of 
their introduction into the history when it comes does 
not harmonize to the fullest extent with the statements 
of the Pentateuch concerning the origin of the priest- 
hood. The pure artificialty of the scheme, claimed by 
Wellhausen, and to be expected on his theory, does not 
appear.^ 

That the idea of priests is not foreign to this docu- 
ment is clear from Gen. xlvii. 22. In Ex. xix. 22, 24, 
too, the presence of priests is assumed during the 
giving of the covenant. And from what other class is 
it so likely that the numerous magistrates here found 
were drawn (cf. Ex. xxi. 22 ; xxii. 8 ; and especially with 
xxi. 6 cf. Deut. xv. 17; xvii. 9; xix. 17) ? So in Joshua, 
a passage admitted to belong to JE, we find a company 
of priests bearing the ark of God across the Jordan. 
Nor is the matter left to occasional references even 
here. As we have already seen, the idea of a central 

1 Ibid. p. 228. 



114 ^'^^^ PentatetLch: Its Origin arid Structure. 

sanctuary already at home in it, is inseparable from the 
legislation concerning the three great annual feasts. 
Are the feasts, indeed, any way practicable without the 
sanctuary, or the sanctuary without an established 
priesthood and a law of sacrifice ? 

As it concerns D, the hypothesis proposed can only 
be adjusted with even greater violence to the facts. It 
is declared, for instance, that it recognizes no distinc- 
tion between priests and Levites, and support is 
claimed for the position from the uniform title of the 
former in Deuteronomy, namely, '^ Levitical priests." 
But no one will deny that this usage harmonizes admir- 
ably with the supposed descent of the priests, and as a 
designation is not without example in the very latest 
books of the Old Testament, even such as are sup- 
posed to be saturated with the spirit of PC (Jer. xxxiii. 
1 8, 21 ; Isa. Ixvi. 2i ; 2 Chron. v. 5 ; xxiii. 18 ; xxx. 27). 
Moreover, if we look at one of these passages in D 
(Deut. xviii. 1-8) we shall find that the distinction 
between these two classes, as a matter of fact, is 
fairly indicated even here. When (vs. i) ''the priests, 
the Levites, the whole tribe of Levi " are spoken of, 
why the qualifying phrase if they are understood to 
mean one and the same class 1 Again (vs. 2), it is said 
of these two classes, embracing the whole tribe of 
Levi, that the Lord is their inheritance, as he had said 
unto them. I have already shown elsewhere that this 
is a direct citation of Num. xviii. 20, 23, and it is to be 
particularly noted now that the passage in this its orig- 
inal form is applicable, as here applied, to both priests 
and Levites. And it will be observed further, in this 
passage of Deuteronomy, that from vs. 3-5 the priest 
is plainly distinguished from his tribal brother the 
Levite, being spoken of by himself; while in vs. 6-2> 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 1 15 

the case is reversed. This is made certain by the fact 
that their diverse maintenance is directly referred to 
(with vs. 3, 4 cf. vs. 8 and Num. xviii. 21-24). And in 
the moving picture of a Levite, who had been engaged 
apparently in some other service in the land, but whose 
heart now yearns for the service of the central sanctu- 
ary of his people, — besides which no other is recog- 
nized in this book, — every feature of the situation, 
especially the command to extend sympathy and help 
to him, speaks of a difference in station. When it is 
said that he is to be permitted to serve there, such 
service is expressly limited to that of his brethren the 
Levites, like portion with whom also — understood to 
be established by statute — he is to have. Could all 
who serve at this sanctuary, or even the great propor- 
tion, be priests } It is impossible. Even if the author 
of Deuteronomy had made no distinction, we should be 
obliged to make it in our own minds. 

But are not the priests in D (Deut. x. 8 ; cf. xxxi. 9) 
understood to be the proper persons to bear the ark of 
the covenant, while in the legislation of PC (Num. iii. 
31 ; iv. 15 ; vii. 9; cf. i Chron. xv. 15) it is made the sole 
duty of the Levites } This is hardly a fair statement 
of the case. In the legislation of PC it is nowhere 
said that the priests shall not bear the ark. On the 
other hand, we do not learn from D that they always 
have this service to perform (Deut. xxxi. 25). The 
truth established alike by all phases of the legislation 
and by the history (see i Sam. vi. 15 ; 2 Sam. vi. 13; 
I Kings viii. 6 ; 2 Chron. v. 4, 5, 7) is, that while this 
was ordinarily made the duty of the Levites, it was 
also not considered out of character for the priests on 
special occasions to do it ; nay, wholly comported with 
their position when, from being a task, it became for 
any reason a mark of distinction and honor. 



Ii6 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

It cannot be denied, however, that there is in D a 
marked obscuration of the distinction between priests 
and Levites. The name given to the former is not 
that which prevails in HG, — "the priests," — and 
especially not that most common in PC — "the priests, 
the sons of Aaron," or "Aaron and his sons," the 
fact of their priestly office being understood. They 
are, indeed, sometimes named "priests" in Deuter- 
onomy, but in no instance is their descent from Aaron 
indicated. In a majority of instances, on the other 
hand, their origin from Levi is emphasized (Deut. xvii. 
9, i8; xviii. i; xxi. 5; xxiv. 8; xxvii. 9; xxxi. 9). 
And this usage perpetuates itself to a considerable 
extent in the subsequent literature (Josh. iii. 3 ; viii. 
33; Jer. xxxiii. 18, 21; Isa. Ixvi. 21), even in works 
which in other parts show that they are well aware of 
the distinction (Ezek. xliii. 19; xliv. 15). How is this 
undeniable and most singular fact to be accounted for ">. 

As it seems to us, the peculiar circumstances under 
which the Book of Deuteronomy professes to have 
been produced have been too much overlooked. While 
Aaron was still alive and stood with Moses at the head 
of the Israelitish community, while the tribe of Levi 
still remained in the wilderness and stood very much 
on a level with the other tribes as it respects both 
privileges and hardships, there could be no special 
occasion for making the distinction between family 
and tribe any less marked than it appears in the 
Levitical law. But on their entrance into Canaan, 
when the matter of conquest and the division of the 
land between the tribes would be uppermost, the cir- 
cumstances were entirely changed. One whole tribe, 
not a single family only, was to be excluded from that 
division. How might they be expected to feel when 



TJie Proposed Analysis Tested. 1 17 

they actually confronted the fact ? Because they were 
Levites, that did not make them any the less men, or 
any the less tenacious than others of their tribal rights. 
Already in the experiences of the wilderness, notwith- 
standing the cloud that hangs over those experiences, 
we have evidence that these whilom slaves of Egypt 
cherish the ambitions that aspire to place and power. 
And the history of the period of the canquest, with 
the centuries immediately succeeding, suffices to show 
that tribal jealousy was a factor that no judicious 
leader of Israel could afford to overlook. 

This was no time, consequently, when the people were 
standing on the margin of the promised land, and two 
and a half tribes had already been apportioned their 
inheritance, for a man like Moses to overlook the 
particularly trying position of his own tribe of Levi. 
Was it not natural that he should seek in every way to 
make easier for them what was hard enough at best, to 
be characterized as a really sublime act of self-denial t 

When, in fact, from that day to this, has a genuine 
service of the altar been anything else } It might be 
said that a mere title, the raising of their tribal name 
into prominence and honor could have weighed but 
little with them. But it is on such trifles as this that 
great affairs have turned in history. That the priestly 
class of the Israelitish people should cease to bear the 
title ''sons of Aaron," and be hailed as "sons of Levi," 
and the whole tribe be lifted bodily, as it were, by the 
honorable positions assigned and the kindly mention 
everywhere made of them in the closing words of the 
great lawgiver of Sinai, — that could have been no trifle 
among a people such as came up out of Egypt, where 
to be a priest was to stand beside the king himself. 

But a special evidence of a later period is said to be 



The Pentatetich : Its Orio^in and Structure. 



i) 



found in the position assigned in PC to the high-priest. 
Wellhausen sees in this personage the cHmax of many 
centuries of development in the priesthood, and a most 
exaggerated climax. The figure he makes in the Pen- 
tateuch, it is claimed, is a wholly disproportionate one, 
and that to put him back into the age of Moses would 
be the grossest of anachronisms. ^ It should be 
observed, however, at the outset, that the figure which 
this critic represents as that of the high-priest, is, in 
no small degree, one created by his own imagination ; 
and his way of interpreting the history may be inferred 
from a single example. He says of Samuel, whom he 
calls an Ephraimite, that he slept every night in 
discharge of the duties of his office beside the ark of 
the Lord to which, according to Lev. xvi., the high- 
priest was allowed to enter but once a year. 

Being an Ephraimite, as should be well known, was 
no hindrance to one's being also a Levite (Judges, xvii. 
7 ; cf . I Chron. vi. 7-13, and Curtiss's note on p. 95 of 
Levitical Priests)^ which Samuel in all probability was. 
But that he slept in the most holy place is not affirmed 
in the text (i Sam. iii. 3) ; it says simply that he slept 
in "■ the temple of the Lord where [of course] the ark 
of God was." 

Wellhausen assumes, further, that the title high- 
priest is of late origin, and seeks to create the impres- 
sion that its presence in PC is as noticeable as its 
absence from the historical books. Yet this title is 
found but twice altogether in PC (Num. xxxv. 25, 28), 
and once in HG (Lev. xxi. 10), and the usage in the 
history is precisely similar, the two titles being em- 
ployed interchangeably, the simpler one, however, 
largely preponderating even in the Books of Chronicles, 
Ezra, and Nehemiah. 

1 Ibid. p. 153 f. 



The Pi'oposed Analysis Tested. 1 1 9 

It is alleged, too, that in PC the high-priest appears 
arrayed in royal purple and diadem, and standing at 
the head of a compact ecclesiastical hierocracy, which 
shows a total transformation of the nature of the office 
as set forth in Jewish history. Here again our critic's 
theory has sorely misled him. The I'oyal purple is 
indicated by quite a different word from the one em- 
ployed in the description of the high-priest's robe, as 
has been pointed out by Hoffmann, Delitzsch, and 
others ; and the only diadem of this official was 
a simple turban of white, which formed the covering 
for his head in the earliest and latest periods alike 
(cf. Lev. xvi. 4 ; Ex. xxviii. 31 ; xxxix. 22). 

In short, a single fact is sufficient to show how com- 
pletely all historical ground fails for regarding the high- 
priest of PC as a post-exilian creation. It is enjoined 
in this document that the high-priest shall be anointed 
on entering upon his office, and the history corroborates 
the employment of the rite (Ex. xxviii. 41 ; xxx. 30 ; 
Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16; vii. 36; x. 7 ; xxi. 12). Yet this also 
Wellhausen ^ regards as a novelty of the exile. " He 
receives," he says, "on his induction into office the 
anointing, like a king, and is called accordingly 'the 
anointed high-priest.' " But if this procedure be, as is 
supposed, a product of this late period, how does it 
happen that it occurs in no single case as a usage in it } 
Even as early as Zechariah iii. we find the high-priest 
installed without ceremony. How is it possible to sup- 
pose that the subtle hierocrats of this age made some- 
thing found by themselves to be unnecessary or 
impracticable so imposing a feature of their ritual .? It 
is probable that one principal reason why this earlier 
custom was not continued after the return from 

"^ Ibid. p. 154. 



1 20 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Babylon was an uncertainty as to the method of 
compounding the anointing oil or the proper solemniza- 
tion of the rite.i 

When, in fact, we look more closely at the historic 
position of the priesthood, including the high-priest, as 
reflected in the literature of the exile, we see in how 
many important respects it refuses to yield us the form 
.demanded by the code supposed to be the offspring of 
this very period. It is something less, but it is also 
something more. And it would have been more in 
keeping with their professed aim, if our critics — 
instead of questioning the prophetical books so minutely, 
and turning not only the infrequent utterances of the 
Hebrew seers on these topics, but their very silence, 
into proofs of the non-existence of a large part of the 
Pentateuch in their time — had given more attention 
to the Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles, 
where, if anywhere, this strange theory should find 
positive support. 

Why, for example, has it been overlooked that sub- 
sequent to the time of King Josiah the historical books 
recognize a sort of high-priest of secondary rank, of 
which PC knows absolutely nothing (cf. 2 Kings xxv. 
18 ; Jer. lii. 24 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. 13 ; Neh. xi. 1 1). Some- 
times he is called "the second priest," and again ''the 
ruler." The Talmud describes his office as that of a 
''leader of the priests," his ordinary business being to 
assist the high-priest, and in case of his disability to 
represent him on the day of atonement. Is it possible 
that an office of this character should have been over- 
looked in a code of the nature of PC, if it came into 
existence to any considerable extent at or after the 
time of the exile } 

1 Cf. Ex. XXX. 22-33 and Dolitzsch, Zcitschrift, etc. p. 237. 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 1 21 

Again, the Books of Chronicles are deemed the 
clearest historical mirror of the "Priests' Code." Ac- 
cordingly we might expect, at least, an adumbration of 
its main features. Why, then, in so characteristic a 
matter as its account of the organization of the service 
of the Levites, do they take scarcely any account of 
the code (i Chron. xvi., xviii., xxiv., xxvii.) ? The whole 
treatment of the temple music is confined to the history, 
not a word in the code, excepting only what is said of 
the trumpets of the priests (Num. x. i-io). To know 
how important a matter this service was regarded, and 
to what dimensions it grew, with its thousands of per- 
formers and its leaders, a Heman, an Asaph, and a 
Jeduthun standing alongside of David himself in the 
honor of a conspicuous place in the Psalter, one must 
refer to the Chronicler and to him alone. 

Here, too, we make the discovery of new offices and 
titles for the Levites : " door-waiters " (i Chron. xv. 23), 
"trustees" of sacred funds (Neh. xii. 44), " secretaries" 
in swarms (2 Chron. xxxiv. 13), the so-called "servants 
of the priests " in numerous classes (cf. 2 Chron. viii. 
14 f.). Most of the leading kings of Judah, in fact, 
after Solomon's reign either renewed the innovations 
which he and his father had made, or introduced other 
changes in the arrangements of the temple to suit their 
times. And among the Tevites who are found return- 
ing after the exile are still other classes (Ezra ii. 55, 58 ; 
viii. 20), of which the previous history gives no account. 
Among these one bears a name which well serves to 
show how wide a period actually stretches between the 
origin of the Levitical code and the times we are con- 
sidering. In that code the Levites, as over against the 
priests, receive the title " Nethunim " (Num. iii. 9 ; viii. 
16, 19; xviii. 6), while here they are termed " Nethi- 



122 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

nim." How is this abrupt change in usage to be ex- 
plained on the hypothesis of a common chronological 
origin ? 

A still more surprising incongruity, also, may be 
pointed out.^ It is well known that the relative number 
of Levites returning from the captivity was very small, 
in the first instance but one twelfth the number of the 
priests ; and in the second, even less. It is matter of 
tradition, which is fully supported by the later history,^ 
that in order to punish this defection Ezra withdrew 
from them the stipulated tithe, transferring it to the 
priests. But if this be so, how is it that the fact is not 
recognized in the legislation of PC } We find the law 
of tithes given in D, not only in full force, but put, it 
may be said, in even a stronger form (Num. xviii. 21, 
24), the Levites being no longer obliged to share their 
portion with others, but enjoying it exclusively by 
themselves.^ 

^ Cf. Delitzsch, s.v . " Leviten" in Riehm's Hatidivorterbuch. 

2 Josephus, Antiq. iv. 4. 4; xx. 8. 8; Heb. vii. 5. 

3 Cf. Watson, The Laiv and the Prophets, p. 84 f. : " The promotion and enforcement 
of God's orderly worship, and of his worship alone, the authors [of PC in the exile] seem 
utterly to miss . . . here. For orderly worship, a carefully arranged code of laws was 
necessary. The laws of the Pentateuch are anything but this. You have laws intermixed 
with the history, laws repeated, laws inserted, apparently as they were given by God, 
or as the need arose. In its lack of arrangement, it is just the book which Moses 
might have been supposed to write during the desert wanderings, when he had to bear the 
burden of the people alone. But Ezra — to take the sacerdotal legislation only, of which 
he is said to be the author — wanted a working code for certain definite purposes. It is 
strange he could not have contrived something better. When we examine his work, we 
find he has been more anxious to give his laws and precepts an antique form than to make 
them practical, working laws. He stamps the mark of the wilderness so deeply on his 
laws that they are often, without adaptation, unfit for use in the Promised Land. He 
seems to study confusion. He mixes the history which illustrates his law and the laws 
which enforce the teaching of his history. Considering his circumstances and his very 
practical purpose, we can find no excuse for him; unless, indeed, we hold that his object 
was to forge a book which would completely deceive, rather than a law which would really 
work." 

"And yet Ezra is not a clumsy workman; he is a consummate artist. He is .able to 
invent narratives which presuppose his laws, and to contrive coincidences which appear to 
be undesigned. Take the narrative of Korah, Dathan,and Abiram, as an instance. Here 
he is inventing a narrative to enforce his law by which the sons of Aaron arc distinguished 



The Proposed Ajialy sis Tested. 123 

(5) Mahitenance of Priests and Levites. — It is held, 
also, that the codes arrange themselves in chronological 
order from JE to PC, as it respects the support 
accorded to the priests and Levites severally. Origi- 
nally, it is claimed, the sacrifices were occasions for 
sacred meals, to which the priests, if there were any, 
were invited. But it was wholly a matter of courtesy, 
any claims they made for services being satisfied by the 
proprietors of the respective altars in some way which 
might be agreed upon. The primitive literature repre- 
sented by JE reflects this state of things. But in D, 
already, the priesthood is found better supported, 
certain parts of the animal sacrificed being by statute 
allowed them ; while in PC the acme is reached, the 
demand of the priesthood having become at this date 
something enormous. "It is incredible," says Well- 
hausen,^ " all that, in the end, must be given up to 
them. What originally stood side by side is heaped 
together ; what was left free and undefined is brought 
to measure and prescribed." Not that they really could 

from the other Levites — one of the main objects of his work. As you will remember, this 
is said to have been the Jewish way of writing history. Now it is plain there would be no 
difficulty in framing a simple narrative, embodying a divine punishment on Levitical dis- 
content. But Ezra's plan is most subtle. He joins the Reubenltes and Levites in one 
conspiracy. There he makes one point. The Reubenites and Levites, we find, were 
close neighbors in the desert encampments. Better still, he joins two tribes together which 
might be supposed to have similar causes of discontent. The Reubenites would be 
jealous for that priesthood which was theirs by right of birth; the Leviles would be 
jealous for that priesthood which had been given the whole tribe for their faithfulness at 
Sinai. Mark what a genius Ezra is. When he writes, the Levites are smarting under 
a recent wrong; they have had the priesthood for centuries and it has just been taken 
away from them. The jealousy of the Reubenites, on the other hand, is a remote tradition, 
or possibly an invention of Ezra's brain. Ezra pieces together in this marvelous fashion 
this actual, present jealousy of Levi with this remote, hypothetical jealousy of Reuben, 
so as to give his story a semblance of truth. He is bold as well as subtle. He strikes at 
the most famous of all the Levitical families, the family of Korah, a name which his 
descendants had brought to honor. He is so bold as to be careless; for, at first sight, he 
leaves us to imagine that Korah's family, so famous in after history, was wholly destroyed 
along with their father. Was Ezra or any one else capable of thus fitting his history to 
his laws? If not, we must remember that this narrative alone, if true, brings back the 
sacerdotal legislation to the Mosaic times." 
^ Ibid, p. 164. 



1 24 TJie PeiitateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

have expected to fleece the people to this extent, how- 
ever, for such a provision as that of the forty-eight 
Levitical cities was a pure invention, at once unexe- 
cuted and unexecutable.^ 

. Now, as it concerns JE, what rational ground can 
there be for assuming that it came into being at a time 
when as yet priests were not officially recognized or 
provided by statute with a sufficient support ? At best, 
it can only be a few exceptional instances which our 
critics find in abnormal circumstances and an unsettled 
period (cf. i Sam. ii. 12-16), over against which we are 
able, as already shown, to point in this very document 
to examples where priests are found in high official 
position, and enjoying all that is implied in it of recog- 
nition and support (Ex. xix. 20-25 ; Josh. iii. 9-17). It 
is inconceivable that the priests selected to bear the 
ark across the Jordan before the hosts of Israel should 
be of the starveling, vagabond class described by Well- 
hausen. 

As relates to D, we are unable to find anything justi- 
fying the extreme position so confidently taken. It is 
absurd to suppose that it means to give (Deut. xviii.) 
a full account of all that, in its time, was appropriated 
for the support of the priesthood. In that case to have 
been a ''stranger" or a "foreigner," under the mild 
Deuteronomic code, would have been far preferable to 
serving at the miserly altar of Israel's only sanctuary. 

The hypothesis, moreover, is positively precluded by 
the form of the legislation in D. Its direct citation 
(xviii. 2) of earlier laws could scarcely be more direct 
if chapter and verse were given. The Deuteronomic 
form of the law, in short, is but a repetition and 
enlargement under circumstances which specially called 

1 Ibid. p. 168 f. 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 125 

for both, of previous enactments. The people after 
more than a generation of life in camp are now to be 
scattered up and down a wide extent of country, with 
difficulty traversable, and on both sides of the Jordan. 
A most important restriction touching the slaughter of 
animals for food has been accordingly removed in the 
very opening lines of the code (xii. 15). The revenues 
of the sanctuary, however, must suffer a proportionate 
abatement. Supposing, then, that the code of the 
middle books is already in force, what more natural 
than that some compensation should be made to the 
officiating priests } As we have noticed, their title as 
" Levitical priests " no longer represents that exclusive 
dignity to which the '' sons of Aaron " might have 
aspired. Shall it not be made to appear that the 
changes inaugurated imply no lack of appreciation of 
the priestly station and function t The offices to which 
elsewhere in this book they are seen to be eligible 
require this (xvii. 12 ; xx. 2 ; xxvi. 3). In what a 
lamentable condition, indeed, must the religion of 
Israel have been if men of the rank of supreme magis- 
trates in the administration of justice must submit, 
under the name of a support, to the miserable pittance 
which this form of the code, taken by itself, grants to 
its priests. 

And if we compare the regulations of D and PC we 
shall find that the common theory best harmonizes 
with the facts. In Deuteronomy xviii. 3, 4, it is said : 
'' And this shall be the right of the priests from the 
people who offer sacrifices, whether ox or sheep, one 
shall give the priest the shoulder, the two cheeks, and 
the stomach, [And in addition to] the first-fruits of 
the corn, the wine, and the oil, the first shearing of 
the sheep." What is added in parenthesis serves to 



1 26 The PentateiicJi : Its Orio-in and Stnictii-re. 



present the true relation of this rule to that of PC. 
The introduction (vs. i, 2) shows that the code of the 
middle books is kept strictly in view. There (Num. 
xviii. 12, 13) the first-fruits have been already promised 
to the priests ; here this fact is recalled in order to add 
to it the wholly new source of income, the first shear- 
ings of the sheep. That the parts of the animal 
assigned in D to the priests are over and above those 
given them in connection with the peace-offerings of 
PC appears from the language used. The terms are 
carefully chosen. Along with the stomach they are 
assigned here the " f orequarter " and the two cheeks; 
there (Lev. x. 15), it is the "wave-breast " and ''heave- 
leg." In PC it is the peace-offerings that are referred 
to (Lev. vii. 11 ; cf. Num. xviii. 11) ; in D, as it would 
appear (note the phrase, vs. 3, " from the people " ), 
any and all sacred meals which might be made at the 
sanctuary or places contiguous (xii. 17; xv. 19, 20). 

But are there not direct contradictions of PC to be 
found in D, making the ordinary hypothesis that they 
have the same origin impossible } So it is announced 
and specifications are given. In Deuteronomy, xii. 
6, 7, 17, for example, the people are forbidden to 
eat the tithe of their products, except at the central 
sanctuary, and the prohibition is later repeated (xiv. 
23). In PC, on the other hand (Num. xviii. 21, 24, 
26, 28), the tithes are given by a perpetual ordinance 
to the Levites as reward for their services at the 
sanctuary ; and they are even enjoined to give a 
tenth of their tenth to the priests. 

All this is at once admitted, and may be as readily 
explained on the ground that the object of the tithe 
in D is wholly different from that of PC, and is meant 
to be understood as a second additional tithe, although 
not as wide in its application as the first. 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 127 

Still another tithe, to be made once in three years 
for festival purposes at home, is a feature of the legis- 
lation peculiar to Deuteronomy (xiv. 28; xxvi. 12) 
and quite appropriate to its supplementary character. 
The three tithings taken together and carried out to 
the letter can in no sense be regarded as oppressive in 
their character or in the least out of harmony with 
one another. At any rate we have direct historical 
evidence that the Jews were accustomed to observe 
such a system of tithing. And this furnishes the 
strongest confirmatory testimony that the three tithes 
were all and severally enjoined in the code.^ 

A more serious conflict still, it is thought, shows 
itself in the matter of the firstlings of the flocks and 
herds. In D (xii. 6, 17; xiv. 23; xv. 19), they are 
devoted to festival purposes at the sanctuary ; in PC 
(Num. xviii. 15-19), they are given to the priests. 
Here is an apparent disagreement, truly, but it is more 
in appearance than in reality. It is true that the Levit- 
ical code puts the firstlings into the hands of the 
priests, but not for any purpose they may choose. 
They are made theirs to sacrifice ; and only after the 
proper portion had been offered on the altar was 
another fixed portion to be theirs for food, '' as the 
wave-breast and the right leg" were theirs (Ex. xxix. 
26-28 ; cf. Deut. xviii. 3). That in Deuteronomy the 
more popular side of the law is presented, and these 
very firstlings, while still belonging to the Lord, are 
regarded as proper material for sacred meals on the 
part of their former owners and their offerers is not to 
call in question the legislation of the Book of Num- 
bers. It is only to shed additional light upon it. The 
people, that is, the original owners of the animals, are 

1 Tobit, i. 7 ; Josephus, Antiq. iv. 8. 8. 



128 The Pentateuch : lis OriHn and Sti'ucture. 



understood to be sharers with the priests on these 
occasions, as was doubtless the case in the other offer- 
ings. In neither phase of the legislation is there any 
exclusive right given ; that of PC especially limits it 
(Num. xviii. i8). 

Might it not have been expected that our critics, 
who seem to be much concerned that the priests are 
granted in this document, at the expense of the people, 
privileges so wholly disproportionate and oppressive, 
would have discovered this very natural method of 
materially curtailing their perquisites } 

Is it in any sense, moreover, true that in PC the 
claims of this class have advanced to an incredible 
extent, and become the intolerable yoke that is repre- 
sented } Such a conclusion must be the result of a 
very superficial examination of the subject, or a much 
higher valuation of the income of the priests than 
is either just or reasonable. Wellhausen has by no 
means exhausted the list of things which, first or last, 
might be claimed by the priest,^ although making some 
mistakes in the enumeration, as others have already 
pointed out.^ He fails, however, to discriminate fairly 
as it respects the real value of the priestly per- 
quisites. It should have been made clear that there 
was understood to be a wrong as well as a right 
way of appropriating and using them. Some of them 
belonged exclusively to the officiating priest ; others to 
the whole class, — some might be consumed by the 
priest in company with his household ; others, only by 
such male priests as were ceremonially clean. The 
time and place of their consumption, too, were defi- 
nitely fixed by law (Lev. vii. 15-17). It should have 
been especially shown, or at least not concealed, that 

^Ibzd. p. 164. - Hoffmann, ibid. 1880, p. 143 f. 



The Pi'oposed Analysis Tested. 129 

the great mass of these allotted gifts were, in their 
very nature, exceedingly perishable, being articles of 
food that could only have a transient value. There 
was little, indeed, of anything that fell exclusively to 
the priest^ even in PC, that could do more than furnish 
him a bare physical support. 

Moreover, the propriety of going beyond PC, into 
the historical books of the exile, in order to find mate- 
rial for depreciating this class is more than question- 
able. That the support of the sanctuary, in addition 
to their own support, was in the earlier times expected 
to come out of what was contributed to those offici- 
ating there is to be inferred from the fact that no 
other provision was made for it in any of the codes. 
When, therefore, Wellhausen cites Neh. x. 32, 33 to 
show that it was not the case (in the later times), but 
that special provision was made, he cites a powerful 
witness against his own hypothesis. The history and 
the code in its supposed much revised and finally com- 
pleted post-exilian form are thus shown to be strikingly 
out of harmony with one another. 

And when, now, in addition to what has been said, it 
is considered that no part of the legislation of the Pen- 
tateuch contains a syllable concerning the collection 
for the priests of these dues, that there is no legal 
limitation of the amount of the first-fruits to be given 
them, and that hence in all periods their actual income 
depended almost wholly on the generosity and the 
'religious fidehty of their countrymen, the whole sub- 
ject assumes a wholly different aspect. It will, at 
least, appear most clearly that the document named 
PC does not make it one of its chief aims to increase 
the power and wealth of this alleged favorite class. 

Still more unfortunate, if anything, are our critics 



1 30 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

in the use they make of the legislation respecting 
the Levitical cities (Num. xxxv. 1-8 ; Josh. xiv. 4). If 
they are a pure fabrication of PC, having the same 
general aim to increase the wealth and influence of the 
priesthood, why are they given to the Levites, — to the 
tribe, and not to the family } And why do we find in 
a document having this purpose and springing up in 
the exile so singular a division of these cities, only 
thirteen of the whole finally falling to the priests (Josh, 
xxi.), notwithstanding the fact that they greatly out- 
numbered the Levites at the period of the return from 
Babylon, and always outranked them, whether in PC or 
out of it } Surely nothing could be more inconsequent 
than to make this an invention of the later priests. 

And not only does the theory of invention condemn 
itself; it is proved false by many facts of Israelitish 
history. It is not true that we discover in this history 
no traces of the law or efforts to enforce it, as Riehm 
has conclusively shown. ^ In fact, the fundamental 
assumption of our critics that according to the records 
of the Hebrew people the priesthood had at first but a 
modicum of power, and that it gradually developed along 
the centuries until subsequent to the exile the apex of 
the pyramid was reached, is radically incorrect. To 
make such an impression possible the history must be 
tortured and schooled and made to tell a preconcerted 
story. The sojourn in Egypt must be denied ; and just 
as stoutly any connection of this class with the Jewish 
lawgiver through Aaron its head. There must be an 
overlooking of those passages in which JE itself speaks 
of the priests with the highest respect, and of the 
numerous points in the history where to the hand of 
the priest are gathered the reins of highest influence 
even in civil affairs. 

1 Uandwdrterbuch, s.v. " Levitenstadte," 



The Proposed Analysis Tested. 1 3 1 

It was inevitable, in the nature of things, that in the 
checkered history of Israel, especially during the wars 
of the conquest, the rule of the judges, the rise and 
dominance of mighty prophets, this class should seem 
sometimes to be overshadowed, and that particularly in 
the spiritual decadence of the people the proverb should 
be fulfilled, *' like people, like priest " (Isa. xxiv. 2). 

But in all this there is no justification for the sus- 
picion that the Levitical legislation was not behind 
them. Their failure in all cases to live up to it is 
sufficiently clear and need not be denied. It is strik- 
ingly paralleled in the better furnished ministry of the 
Christian church. The purest and most dutiful Aaronic 
priest is only debtor to the confession of the noblest 
and most faithful servant of Christ : ^' I count not 
myself to have apprehended." The standard in both 
cases is planted far above the attainment, and in both 
alike proves thereby the divinity of its origin and the 
perfectness of its ends. 



IV. 

LAWS PECULIAR TO DEUTERONOMY. 



The importance of the Book of Deuteronomy in all 
discussions touching the age and origin of the Penta- 
teuch cannot well be overestimated. Leading critics, 
indeed, like De Wette ^ and Graf,^ have regarded it as 
decisive battleground. Lying in the midst of the sup- 
posed development of Pentateuch literature from Moses 
to Ezra, it ought to show, if it appear anywhere, positive 
evidence of the evolution, then in progress. It ought 
to show this especially in its legislation, which, as the 
name " Deuteronomy " imports, forms the body, and is 
undoubtedly the main object, of the work. It ought to 
show it most of all in such laws as are original with this 
book and intrinsically represent it. 

It is said of the Pentateuch codes in general that they 
but reflect, in their several parts, the changing social 
and ethical standard of the Hebrew people during many 
hundred years previous to the exile. If this be true, 

1 Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung. Neu bearbeitet von Schrader, 
Berlin, 1869, pp. 322 ff ; and Studien u. Kritiketi, \?>2i7,'p. 953: "The view taken of 
Deuteronomy is for the criticism of the Pentateuch decisive." 

2 Die GeschicJitlichen Bl'icher dcs Alien Testaments , p. 4 f. ; of. also Kleinert, Das 
Dciiteronoiniu77t, p. 3: " Denn zwar dieses erkennt De Wette an, und hat damit flir 
seine Nachfolger einen Fingerzeig gegeben, dessen Nichtbeachtung fast immer der 
kritischen Untersuchung zur Schadigung gereicht hat: dass in dem Deuteronomium das 
i'u')'^ [lot TCod (TTCL) fur die ganze kritische Frage iiber den Pentateuch gegeben ist." 
Wellhausen, on the other hand, with a good deal of unnecessary bravado, rules the whole 
matter out of the discussion as something already settled. He says (Gcschichtc, p. 9) : 
" Ueber den Ursprung dcs Douteronomiums herrscht noch weniger Zwcifel; in alien 
Kreisen, wo iiberhaupt auf Ancrkennung wissenschaftlicher Resultate zu rechnen ist, 
wird anerkannt, dass es in der Zeit verfasst ist, in der es entdeckt . . . wurde." 



Laws Peculiar to Deiiteronomy. 133 

and they are in no sense ideal or prophetical in char- 
acter, the peculiar product of a superhuman revelation, 
or inspiration at the genesis, and throughout the 
progress of a much more limited development, the 
fact should appear most plainly, not so much in the 
features that are common to all of them, but rather in 
such as are exceptional and individual. There are some 
laws, as for example that regarding public worship, or 
that of the feasts, which, in a form more or less modi- 
fied, appear, as we have seen, in each of the three great 
divisions of the Pentateuch legislation. In such cases 
there is ample room for discussion, in fact, imperative 
need of it, on a host of questions quite apart from the 
main question. It must first of all be determined 
whether these diverse forms are, as alleged, the result 
of widely varying circumstances of place and time, or 
may fairly be regarded as evidence simply of another 
point of view within the same period and on the part 
of the same legislator. Where, however, a law is found 
in but one of these divisions and in but one form, the 
area of debatable ground is greatly lessened. We are 
then prepared at once to test our critical theory con- 
cerning the age of the document and to do it under 
circumstances of the least embarrassment. 

Now, it is well known that no inconsiderable portion 
of the Deuteronomic laws are of this character. And 
it is a highly significant fact in itself, since it is just 
what we might expect on the common hypothesis that 
this code chronologically concludes the legislation of 
the Pentateuch. But it is also of value as furnishing 
a capital opportunity to prove the validity of a favorite 
tenet of many modern critics. 

Out of the full score of these early laws original with 
Deuteronomy, and confined to it, there are some, it is 



1 34 TJie PejitatetLch : Its Origin and Structure. 

true, of such a nature that a chronological test can only 
with difficulty be applied to them. But with the 
majority it is quite otherwise. Their response to such 
a test is both immediate and categorically direct. The 
only question remaining to be asked, that is, for those 
who will press a question of this sort, is whether these 
laws are seriously meant, or, like the so-called " Blue 
Laws " of Connecticut, are but ^//^i-^-statutes, whose 
originator was satisfied if they were founded on fact 
and were not easily distinguishable from fact. 

The first example of a law peculiar to Deuteronomy 
is that concerning seduction to idolatry. It occupies 
the entire thirteenth chapter and appears in three 
sections : (i) as applying to false prophets (vs. 2-6) ; 
{2) to individual members of the community whom it 
rigorously singles out from the most intimate relation- 
ships (vs. 7-12) ; and (3) to whole cities which might 
become infected with the crime (vs. 13-19). The close 
logical connection, both of the subject and its treatment 
with what immediately precedes, is the first thing that 
attracts attention. 

The Deuteronomic code, opening with the twelfth 
chapter, begins with a command addressed to the 
people to totally destroy idolatry and remove every 
vestige of it from the land which the Lord their God 
is giving them as a possession (xii. 2-4). Next follow 
directions respecting their own place of worship. 
There is to be but one such place, and the Lord him- 
self will designate it (xii. 5-28). Then comes the 
present law prohibiting, under penalties the severest 
known to the Pentateuch, efforts from any quarter to 
draw away the people into heathenism. 

In these three phases of the law, together with a 
later section (xvii. 2-5) on the j^unishment of Hebrew 



Laws Peculiar to Detcterononiy. 135 

idolaters, we have what seems intended to be a com- 
plete presentation of the subject as well on its positive 
as its negative side. It is not easy to see how any 
code could have more fully met the requirements of the 
case on the supposition that the Israelitish people are 
what and where they purport to be. It offers by far 
the most developed form of Pentateuch legislation on 
this theme. That of the middle books, notwithstand- 
ing the fact that it is supposed to have originated 
during the exile when the popular spirit of opposition 
to idolatry really culminated, is not only less compre- 
hensive but much less stringent. And what more 
natural t The gigantic evil against which a struggle, 
unsuccessful for a full millennium was to be under- 
taken, now fairly confronted them. Every part of the 
law breathes the spirit of originality and of initiatory 
movement. There are two allusions to the exodus 
from Egypt (vs. 6, 11). The crossing of the Jordan 
is in immediate prospect ; participial forms and the 
future tense of the verb characterize every reference 
to the promised land. 

On the contrary, there is nothing in the times of 
King Josiah, eight centuries later, where critics would 
anchor our code, save his singular zeal for purity of 
worship, that could suggest the origin of such a stat- 
ute in his time. He did, it is true, slay on their own 
altars some priests of the high places of Samaria (2 
Kings xxiii. 20) ; but the history of that period fur- 
nishes no occasion for the peculiar specifications of our 
law touching idolatrous /r^/Z^^/.y (vs. 2-6) ; and its form, 
in other respects, especially in its allusions to Canaani- 
tish neighbors, would have been an anachronism at so 
late a day. 

It is universally admitted that the reforms of Josiah 



136 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

were largely inspired and directed by this law. But 
how is it to be accounted for, unless by the account it 
gives of itself? On no principle of development could 
it have been the spontaneous product of the age 
wherein it wrought so mightily. The reformation in 
the days of Hezekiah and other earlier kings is also 
evidence against it. If, however, from the period of 
the conquest it had existed and lain comparatively 
dormant, but now, when the divided kingdom was 
hastening to its fall, under the divine Providence it had 
come to its inherited right and its legitimate influence, 
the prodigious effects produced may be readily under- 
stood. There is many an analogous fact in the history 
of Christianity. In the vegetable world, too, as is well 
known, there are plants that reach their bloom only 
after lengthy periods of seeming unproductiveness. 
But there is no period when the flower is not present 
in germ or that all the energies of the plant are not 
steadily working toward it. 

The next independent law of Deuteronomy relates 
to the appointment of judges and officers (xvi. 18): 
"Judges and officers shall ye appoint for yourselves 
in all your gates." By ''judges," magistrates seem to 
be meant, and by "officers," their assistants. In a 
second passage (xvii. 8-13) it is further enjoined that 
if these local magistrates find any case brought before 
them for decision too difficult, they — the judges or 
elders, not the people — may carry it up to the central 
place of worship and submit it to the Levitical priests 
or to the judge, that is, supreme magistrate who might 
be ruling in those days ; a verdict thus obtained should 
be irreversible. 

The law obviously contemplates a settled order of 
things in the land of Canaan. It does not, however, 



Laws Peculiar to Detitei'onorny, 1 37 

presuppose it. The cities referred to are those which 
the Lord their God is "on the point of giving" them. 
It shows, no doubt, an advance as it respects the insti- 
tutions of the wilderness (Ex. xviii. 13-26; cf. Num. xi. 
16, 17, 24-29), but an advance along the same line. 
The original provision for seventy elders is so 
extended as to adapt it to circumstances in immediate 
prospect. The dignity and the civil power which, up 
to this time, had inhered in Moses and the high-priest 
are now to be vested in the priests of the central sanc- 
tuary and the chief magistrate of the nation. 

And this arrangement seems actually to have been 
carried out, at least in its main features, in the post- 
Mosaic history, by Joshua (viii. 33 ; xxiv. i), during the 
time of the judges (cf. Ruth iv. 1-9), and in the life of 
Samuel. It is maintained, however, that in this whole 
matter our author simply imputes to Moses something 
that must have originated at a much later day. Even 
so conservative a critic as Riehm^ affirms that the 
existence in his time of a court of appeal is presup- 
posed by the writer of Deuteronomy. And inasmuch 
as the history gives us no account of an institution like 
it before the reign of Jehosaphat (2 Chron. xix. 8-1 1) 
five centuries later, we must conclude that the law 
relating to judges and officers was made after his day. 

To this reasoning and conclusion alike we are quite 
unprepared to subscribe. For, in the first place, if 
anything is taken for granted in the Deuteronomic law 
of the higher court, it is the possibility and the custom 
of appeal, not the existence of this very court. With 
such a general custom the people had been familiar at 
least for a generation, the harder questions having all 
along been carried to Moses and Aaron, and after 

1 Gesetzgebiing Mosis, p. 62 ; Haiidworterbttch, s.v. " Gerichtsvvesen." 



138 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

Aaron's death to Moses and Eleazer (Num. xxvii. 2). 
This practice was now to be continued, the highest 
civil authority acting for the lawgiver. 

In the second place, the court instituted by Jehosa- 
phat was, in some of its features, a totally different 
affair from the one before us. It was composed of 
priests and Levites, instead of Levitical priests. It 
had a civil, as well as ecclesiastical, head acting at one 
and the same time. Our law presents them as acting 
independently. The civil head is represented by a 
family chief of Judah, ndgidh, an official unknown to 
Deuteronomy in this connection, with whom are asso- 
ciated also some of the chiefs of the fathers of Israel ; 
while the high-priest is the ecclesiastical head. 

In the third place, we find David, a hundred and fifty 
years before the time of Jehosaphat, apparently guided 
in his appointment of officials by the Deuteronomic 
code (i Chron. xxiii. 1-4; xxvi. 29-32). It might, 
indeed, be objected that this account of what David did 
is found only in the much depreciated history of the 
Chronicler. But if the second of his books be compe- 
tent authority for the alleged acts of Jehosaphat, the 
first should be thought no less so for those of David. 

The law for the pzmishment of Hebrezv idolaters (xvii. 
2-5) has been already casually mentioned in connection 
with that concerning seduction to idolatry. Like the 
latter, it professes to be anticipatory legislation (v. 2) ; 
and there would be no further need of calling attention 
to it were it not for a peculiar species of idolatry to 
which it refers : " And hath gone and served other gods 
and worshiped them as the sun, or the moon, or any of 
the host of heaven which I have not commanded " (v. 3). 
The worship of the heavenly bodies, Saba^anism, is here 
recognized as a possibility. But from the historical 



Laws Peailiar to Deuteronomy. 1 39 

books of the Old Testament (2 Kings xxi. 3 £f. ; 
2 Chron. xxxiii. 3 ff.), we learn that the public introduc- 
tion of such worship i7ijiidah took place in the reign of 
Manasseh, at the beginning of the seventh century 
before Christ. It is accordingly held that the present 
law would be out of place in the time of Moses, the 
tacit assumption, of course, being that a law never pre- 
cedes, but always follows, the outbreak of the crime 
against which it is directed. 

But, were such a principle to be admitted in the 
present case, the conclusion reached would by no 
means follow, since there is overwhelming evidence 
that this particular form of idolatry had been known 
to the Israelites from the beginning. The kingdom of 
Israel had practised it long before the time of Manas- 
seh, as witnessed to by the Books of Kings (2 Kings 
xvii. 16). Amos, too (v. 26 f.), during the reign of Jero- 
boam II., makes direct reference, as is now acknowl- 
edged by the best authorities, to the worship of Saturn 
in the northern kingdom, naming the planet both by its 
Accadian and its Assyrian title.^ 

It is indisputable, moreover, that sun, moon, and star 
worship was one of the most primitive and universal 
forms of idolatry among the leading nations with which 
the Hebrews during the Mosaic period came in contact. 

1 See Riehm's Hand-worterbuch, s. v. " Assyrien," "Sonne"; also Schrader, 
Die Keilinschriften, etc. 2te Aufl., p. 442, and in Stiidien 7ind Kritiken, 1874, pp. 
324-332. Hommel, too {^Die Vorsemitischeii KjilUiren, i. (2), p. 204), speaks of the 
renowned temple of the goddess of the Moon, which the old king of Ur, Ur-bagas (c. 2870 
B.C.), and his son Dungi built; and still further (p. 209), of a temple of the Sun at 
Larsa, the EUasar of Gen. xiv. i. Rawlinson, in The Religions of the Ancient World 
(p. 145), says of the religion of the Phoenicians : " That Shamas or Shemesh, ' the Sun,' 
was worshiped separately from Baal has already been mentioned. In Assyria and Baby- 
lonia he was one of the foremost deities ; and his cult among the Phoenicians is witnessed 
to by such names as Abed-Shemesh, which is found in two of the native inscriptions. . . . 
The sun-worship of the Phoenicians seems to have been accompanied by a use of sun- 
images, of which we have perhaps a specimen in the accompanying figure which occurs 
on a votive tablet found in Numidia." 



140 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

It lay at the basis of the Baal and Astarte cultus of 
their Canaanitish neighbors. Its prevalence in Egypt 
is proved by the monuments.^ And how seriously 
Abraham's Chaldaean ancestry was devoted to it 
appears from the fact that in the wedge-shaped 
inscriptions of their day the uniform ideographic 
representation of the divinity was a star.^ Hence, so 
far from finding it strange that we meet with an alleged 
Mosaic law of this sort in Deuteronomy, we should 
think it strange if under the circumstances supposed it 
were not there. 

Besides, the form of the statute is not to be over- 
looked : " And hath gone and served other gods . . . 
which I have not commanded." A certain kind of 
worship then had been enjoined. We cannot well be 
mistaken in supposing that the second of the ten com- 
mandments is specially referred to. " Thou shalt have 
no other gods before me," and especially the clause, 
" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image or 
any likeness of that which is in heaven above " (Ex. 
XX. 3, 4). 

We are confirmed in this view by what is said in a 
previous chapter of Deuteronomy (iv. 19), where the 
writer, indirectly commenting on the giving of the law 
at Horeb, alludes to this very thing, that is, interprets 
the second commandment, as it would seem in this 
sense : " And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, 
and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the 
stars, all the host of heaven, shouldst be led to worship 
and serve them." So that the force of the concluding 
words of our law, " worship any of the host of heaven 
which I have not commanded," may fairly be said to 
be, "which I have elsewhere already forbidden." 

1 Cf. Ebers, s.v. " Egypten," in Riohm's Handworterb.; also s.v. " Gebet," idem. 
^ Idem. s.z>, "Assyrien." Cf. Rawlinson, Anc/eni Mon. i. pp. 125, 127. 



Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 141 

We come next in order to the laiv of the king (Deut. 
xvii. 14-20). Fault has often been found with the 
original political constitution of the Hebrew people, 
as formulated in the Pentateuch, on the ground of its 
impracticability. It was, to some extent, impracticable, 
and for a very natural reason. A pure theocracy would 
be wholly practicable only among unfallen or perfectly 
sanctified men. It is not to be regarded as a defect of 
the Mosaic constitution that it put forward so unique 
and noble an ideal ; that it pursued it till its practica- 
bility at that time, and under the circumstances that 
then prevailed, was fully demonstrated ; or, further, that 
from the first it foresaw the exigencies that would arise 
(Gen. xvii. 16; xxxvi. 31 ; xlix. 10) and ma.de provision 
for them by means of statutes designed to regulate and 
limit what might not be wholly prevented. 

The law of the king, as we find it recorded in Deu- 
teronomy, is, on its face, framed in anticipation of a 
juncture to arise. It looks forward to a period when 
the Canaanites shall have been dispossessed, their land 
apportioned, and Israel definitely settled in it. The 
demand for a king would then arise. It would come 
from the people. Permission is granted to comply with 
this demand conditionally, and directions given in detail 
concerning the manner of the sovereign's choice, the 
title he shall bear, the government of his household, his 
income, his relative position among his brethren, the 
succession, and other matters, in a way to set him 
wholly apart from any contemporaneous kings, so, 
indeed, as to show that he was to be a king under the 
peculiar conditions of a government that must still be 
recognized, as in the end, theocratic. 

The law, in short, is Mosaic in the finest shading of 
its phraseology. It is true that some temptations and 



142 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Stritctiire. 

evil practices of kings in general — in the event proving 
to be also those of later Israelitish kings, like Solomon 
— seem to have been directly in mind throughout and 
guarded against. With the knowledge of what the 
kings of Egypt and Canaan were, what less could have 
been expected of such a man as Moses, to say nothing 
of the fact that our book represents him as a prophet ? 

On the other hand, there are features of this law 
which plainly preclude the theory of its supposed origin 
near the close of the seventh century B.C. What sense 
on such a supposition in the injunction that a foreigner 
was not to be set up as a king } Already, for centuries, 
the succession had been firmly established in the family 
of David.^ Or in forbidding to lead the people back 
again to Egypt .? Such a return had not been thought 
of since the first crossing of the Jordan ; although so 
familiar a subject in the motcths of the people in Moses' 
time (Ex. xvi. 3 ; Num. xi. 5 ; xiv. 4). 

It is true that we do not find Samuel, when long 
after the subject of a king is broached by the discon- 
tented people (i Sam. viii. i ff.), quoting this law. 
There is excellent reason for his not doing so. He is 
looking at the matter and speaking of it from the point 
of view of his petitioners. He calls attention to the 
additional and oppressive burdens the new office will 
entail on them ; to the more than questionable spirit 
and form in which their request is made. It is true 
that he feels obliged to condemn the project, as it is 

1 Delitzsch {ZcitscJirift filr kirchlichc IVissenscha/t, etc. i8So, p. 565) has suffi- 
ciently answered the point made by Prof. W. Robertson Smith (A nswcr to the A uicudcd 
Libel, -p. 26), who refers to Is. viii. 5, in evidence that " die syrisch-cphraimtische Ligue 
die Davidische Dynastle zu beseltigen und einen Syrer Ben Tab'el ziim Konige von Juda 
zu machen gedachte, indem er dabei bemerkt, dass eine Partei in Jiida dieses Vorhaben 
beglinstigte. Aber woher weiss er dass so gewiss? Es ist nichts als auf streitiger iind 
mchr als unwahrscheinlicher Deutung von les. 8, 6 beruhende Vermuthiing." He adds 
that the sins there rebuked are common to the whole people. 



Lazus Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 143 

brought before him, just as Gideon had already done 
(Judges viii. 22, 23) ; and that finally in those particular 
circumstances — as in any circumstances if the best 
thing were wanted — the request for a king is conceded 
under protest. But there is just as little reason on this 
ground for holding that Samuel was unacquainted with 
the Deuteronomic law of the king, as there is for 
holding that Hosea was not acquainted with it, who 
also says (xiii. 1 1) that God gave to Israel a king in his 
anger ; or that St. Stephen (Acts xiii. 21) was ignorant 
both of Samuel's and of Hosea's words because in his 
reference to the choice of Saul as king he says not 
a word of there being any opposition to it. 

Th.^ people of Samuel's time, it is evident, knew of the 
law ; they do not overlook the advantage they have in 
it in the appeal they make. They use its language 
almost word for word in Hebrew, "make us a king to 
judge us like all the nations " (i Sam. viii. 5 ; cf. Deut. 
xvii. 14). And it has been noticed that the whole 
context is saturated with Deuteronomic expressions 
and ideas.^ 

^Cf. Slime, Kingdovt of All Israel (London, 1883), pp. 35-38, and Professor Green 
in the Stcnday-School Times for October 6, 13, 1883. The ingenious theory of Ewald 
adopted by Riehm {Gesetzgebit7i^ Mosis, p. 81 if.)> that in the specification of our law 
that the king " shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to 
Egypt, to the end that he may multiply horses," the hiring out of Israelites as mercenaries 
to the Egyptian king is meant; and that such a state of things might well have existed in 
the time of Manasseh is utterly lacking in documentary support. The only passage that 
even looks in this direction is the threatening contained in Deut. xxviii. 68, that in case 
of unfaithfulness the people shall be carried down to Egypt in ships. Aside from this 
there is not a hint of such a possibility in the biblical books. And it is impossible to 
suppose that if a project so repugnant to the Jewish spirit and institutions had been 
entertained, it would have been so completely overlooked. 

Moreover, in the narrative of the crowning of Joash, c. 878 B.C. (2 Kings xi. 12), there 
is a notable allusion to a law of some kind that was committed to him. It is said of the 
high-priest on that occasion that he brought forth the king's son and put the crown 
and the testimony upon him. On the original word for " testimony," Thenius saj-s 
{Com., z'u loco) that it was not an ornament, not a phylactery on the crown, not the 
royal insignia, but the law, a book in which Mosaic regulations had been written. This 
conclusion is certainly in harmony with the uniform employment of the word in the Old 
Testament. And Kleinert (Detiterojioviiu/n, p. 97^, with other first-rate authorities. 



144 J^^^^ Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

Not inferior in importance to this law of the king, 
among the independent statutes of the present code, is 
that relating to the prophet {xv'm. 15-19). ''A prophet 
from the midst of thee, from thy brethren like myself, 
shall the Lord thy God raise up unto thee," etc. It is 
most singularly introduced in connection with a prohibi- 
tion of magic, to which, in fact, it holds a subordinate 
position. Moses is the speaker. He assumes, as some- 
thing well understood, that this prophet had been 
already provided for at the giving of the law in Sinai, 
although we have no other record of such a provision. 
He declares that when he comes he will be the mouth- 
piece of Jehovah to Israel, and that whoever refuses 
to hear him, it will be required of him. 

Nowhere is the personality of the great mediator of 
the Siniatic covenant more distinctly impressed on an 
utterance of the Pentateuch. Now, let it be supposed 
that it was not he. Let us look for a moment at the 
hypothesis that it is some unknown prophet or priest of 
many centuries later who is speaking here, as if he were 
Moses. What must have been the man's temerity to 
press his impersonation to the extent that he not only 
makes the supposititious lawgiver say that the coming 
prophet will be like himself, but refer to an event in 
his own and their past history concerning which the 
Pentateuch is silent and the people of that later day 
were probably ignorant } How strange the working 
of his mind, especially if he were himself a prophet, 
that he should introduce in so dubious a connection, 

supposes that our Deuteronomic law of the king is specially meant. Whether this be 
so, or, as seems more likely, it be the entire code of Deuteronomy that is referred to ("cf. 
Deut. xvii. 18, 19), there can be little doubt that it was considered the proper thing 
to do to put a written copy of some portion of the Pentateuch in the hands of the king on 
his accession. And since thi? is one of the very things enjoined in the statute we are now 
considering, it is to be inferred that the custom arose in this way through the mediation 
of the priests, in whose hands it was kept. 



Laws Peculiar to DctUeronomy. 145 

that is, as subordinate to a law on magic, the matter 
of Hebrew prophecy, and the culmination of it too, an 
institution surpassed by no other in its grandeur and 
importance. 

It is not to be supposed that critics who reject the 
Mosaic authorship of these laws will, with Delitzsch 
and others, see in the present one a direct, not to say 
exclusive, prophetic reference to the Messiah. They 
would rather choose to hold, it is likely, that if there 
be a latent allusion to such a possible outcome of 
prophecy, it is simply the product of a wholly natural 
hope and aspiration of the Jewish mind. 

If this be so, and we have before us simply an ex post 
facto reference to Hebrew prophets and prophecy in 
general, as they had come to be, and to be known long 
before the conjectured date of Deuteronomy, it is 
certainly a surprising and wellnigh incredible circum- 
stance. The almost surreptitious manner of its 
introduction, as we have said, puzzles us. It presents, 
moreover, but a single one of the prophet's many-sided 
functions. It characterizes men like Samuel, Gad, and 
Elijah, Obadiah, Amos, and Jonah as being like Moses, 
v/hich would set everybody to thinking of more respects 
in which they were quite unlike him. It speaks of 
a prophet, has the office principally in mind, when more 
than a score and a half of them, differing from one 
another as widely as Elisha and Jeremiah, had already 
appeared, whose activities had extended over a period 
of five hundred years. It offers as a criterion to prove 
the claims of such as might give themselves out for 
prophets, the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of their pre- 
dictions ; when such seers of the distant future as 
Isaiah and Micah were then upon the stage, for whom 
so specific a test would have been as inappropriate as 



146 The PentateucJi: Its Origin and Structure. 

it was fitting for the sporadic prophets and their 
imitators in the early days. 

We meet next, in the series of laws now under 
review, with one against the removing of landmarks 
(Deut. xix. 14) : ''Thou shalt not remove the boundary 
line of thy neighbor which those going before have 
placed as a boundary in thy inheritance which thou 
shalt inherit in the land the Lord thy God is giving 
thee for a possession." The reference, plainly, is to 
the fraudulent displacement of boundaries separating 
one's landed property from that of his neighbor. How 
serious a breach of equity it was regarded may be 
inferred from the circumstance that it is one of the acts 
singled out in the 27th chapter of this book for special 
execration. The important point now to be considered, 
however, is a supposed anachronism of the writer in 
representing Moses as saying, "which those going 
before have set as a boundary." The clause is ren- 
dered by some, "which the forefathers," or "thy fore- 
fathers set as a boundary," and it is accordingly 
regarded as a clear lapsus pcnncE of our ^?/«J2-legislator 
of the exodus. But there is not only no necessity for 
this rendering, there is, as it seems to us, no propriety 
in it. The word in question is found without the 
article or any pronominal or other limitation. It means 
simply "predecessors," and might justly be employed 
in such a connection by one who was legislating not for 
any particular emergency, but for the whole future of the 
covenant people. That it is used in this sense here and 
not in that of " forefathers " who had already departed, 
the context is conclusive proof. The " boundaries " 
spoken of are those of the land which the Lord their 
God is "on the point of giving them." This participle 
is as characteristic a feature of all references to the 



Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 147 

land of Canaan in our code as yibhchar is of the formula 
by which the central sanctuary is designated. The 
criticism that would impute to our lawgiver, whoever 
he may be, the folly of expressing, within the limits of 
a single verse, ideas so contradictory as that the Israel- 
ites had long been settled in Canaan, and that they had 
not yet entered it, condemns itself. 

To possess and occupy Canaan meant a long and 
bitter conflict. It is natural, therefore, to find no 
inconsiderable part of our code devoted to military 
operations and rules of war. How captives are to be 
treated, cleanliness in camp, what cities are to be 
spared and what destroyed, the demolition of heathen 
shrines, — these are some of the timely topics treated 
by our lawgiver on the eve of the conquest. Of a like 
nature is the one we now take up regarding preparation 
for battle (Deut. xx. 1-9; xxiv. 5). It is most unique in 
character, and bears in every part the evidence of strict 
historic truthfulness. 

First, there is an appeal for courage in view of supe- 
rior numbers and strength. He who had brought them 
out of Egypt would be with them. Should they see 
horses and chariots, they were not to be afraid of them. 
Afraid of. horses and chariots ! Childish admonition if 
it be not childlike and genuine ! In Hezekiah's and 
in Josiah's time the land already swarmed with them. 
Ahab alone was master of a good two thousand chariots 
of war (cf. Is. ii. 7). 

Next, the very process of entering on a campaign is 
simply detailed. It is assumed, in harmony with Num- 
bers (i. 3), that the whole male population over twenty 
years of age and capable of bearing arms is at the place 
of muster. It is assumed, further, in accord with 
instructions of the same book (xxvi. 2), that full lists of 



148 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

those subject to military duty are in the hands of the 
Shoterim. It is also assumed that a priest specially 
designated for the purpose " the priest," again in 
dependence on the Book of Numbers (xxxi. 6), where 
Phinehas acted in this capacity, will be present to 
hearten and inspire the host with his trumpet and his 
brave words. It is assumed that the Shoterim, who 
have the muster-rolls, are empowered, not only to 
address the assembled levies, retain or dismiss at will 
such as are found eligible or ineligible for active service 
(with V. 6 cf. Lev. xix. 3 £), but also to divide and sub- 
divide them into battalions and companies, set them in 
battle array, and place suitable leaders at their head. 

The entire arrangement, in short, is peculiarly primi- 
tive and appropriate only to the earliest periods of the 
commonwealth. After the rise of king, court, and 
mighty men of war, after Saul's second year, when 
three thousand chosen men were made the nucleus of 
a standing-army, especially after David's day, when 
royal bodyguards were customary and foreign mer- 
cenaries began to be employed, such an arrangement 
would have been antiquated and impossible. 

The ireatrnent of hostile cities that are not of Cajiaan 
is also made the subject of special legislation in our 
code (xx. 10-14, 19, 20), and the manner of its intro- 
duction is full of meaning. The lawgiver had just 
been speaking of Canaanitish cities, which in sharp 
discrimination he refers to as "the cities of these 
nations here" (xx. 15), that is, lying over against their 
encampment in the fields of Moab. For them there 
was one law of procedure. It had been indicated in 
previous deliverances to which he now refers (v. 17). 

But it is not alone the peculiar introduction of the 
subject that is significant. The whole outlook of the 



Lazvs Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 149 

legislation is equally so. With what propriety, for 
example, could a writer of King Josiah's time, three 
hundred years after the division of the kingdom, a hun- 
dred after the final captivity of Israel, when many a 
fortress of Judah was already in possession of Assyrian 
troops, in the midst of the moral decadence and politi- 
cal disintegration that are reflected in the prophecy of 
Jeremiah, preface a command to exterminate the 
Canaanites with another specifying how foreign cities 
were to be besieged and their prospective spoils appro- 
priated ? Especially on what principles of psychology 
could it be. anticipated that under circumstances like 
these a romancing legislator of the later day, without 
a hint of an impending catastrophe to the polity and 
people to which he himself belonged, would coolly 
bethink himself of so small a matter as the fruit-bearing 
trees that might be growing around the beleaguered 
towns of imaginary foreign foes, and sedulously enjoin 
that they be spared for food ? 

In the ceremonial oi purification for murder, the mur- 
derer being unknown, recorded in Deut. xxi. 1-9, we 
have a remarkable example of the utmost simplicity of 
form united with a singularly active consciousness of the 
sacredness of human life and the solidarity of human 
responsibility concerning it.^ Where, but amidst the 
simplicity of primitive times, should we find the authori- 
ties of different cities determining jurisdiction after a 
method so rudimental as actual measurement ? 

The entire scene, in its homely picturesqueness, 
makes the impression of the very beginnings of political 
existence. The gathering by a perennial stream, an 
appointed substitute for the unknown criminal in lead- 
ing, the handwashing in token of non-complicity with 
the crime, the touching declaration breaking into 

1 Cf. Gen. iv. lo, the Jehovist; ix. 6 (PC). 



150 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

prayer : '' Our hands shed not this blood and our eyes 
saw not the deed. Forgive, O Jehovah, thy people 
Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent 
blood to the charge of thy people Israel," are all of the 
same simple character. If at first we seem to be wit- 
nessing a sacrifice (cf. kdphar, v. 8), we soon find that 
this is not the case. The fundamental elements of 
a sacrifice are wanting. There is no altar. The blood 
is not shed. The victim's neck is simply broken (cf. 
Ex. xiii. 13). It is an execution. Justice has done its 
work as far as it is possible to do it under these circum- 
stances. The murdered man has been avenged by the 
whole community acting as his kinsman. The same 
form of words, in fact, that in a previous chapter 
brought to a close the execution of a wilful homicide 
(xix. 13) also concludes this ceremony. 

The next two topics treated in the independent code 
of Deuteronomy, that of female captives (xxi. 10-14) 
and a disobedient son (xxi. 18-21), offer but indefinite 
indications of their age. Still, the former implies a 
state of things like that which existed only on the eve 
of the conquest and for a short time after it. The 
captives referred to cannot be Canaanitish women with 
whom marriage was forbidden ; and the acquisition of 
foreign territory and spoils, as we have seen, ceased to 
be a subject of aspiration, and could not have been one 
of legislation, after the reign of David ; while the 
latter harmonizes perfectly with its historic surround- 
ings as well as with the other codes with which it is 
associated (Ex. xxi. 17; Lev. xx. 9), and seems to be 
definitely referred to in some passages of the Chokma 
literature. (Prov. xix. 18, falsely rendered in the A. V. : 
cf. xxx. 17; Ecclus. iii. 1-16).^ 

^ It is an interesting fact, and not without significance, that the old Babylonian family 
customs were very similar to those here indicated. If a son refused to obey his father or 



Lazus Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 151 

A peculiar regulation concerning tJie bodies of persojis 
who had been hanged is met with in Deut. xxi. 22, 2^. It 
is enjoined that they be buried on the day of execution, 
in order that they may not pollute the land. While in 
itself containing nothing out of harmony with a supposed 
Mosaic date, there is a positive confirmation of such 
date in the Book of Joshua. In two notable instances 
this appointed successor of Moses is reported as acting 
in studied consistency with this law (viii. 29 ; x. 27). It 
is true that much of the Book of Joshua is alleged to 
have been written by the author of Deuteronomy, but 
these two passages are not included by the majority of 
critics in that part of it, but admitted to be among its 
oldest portions. 1 

The law requiring that in the case of building "a new 
house" a parapet for safety be made around the roof 
(xxii. 8) might imply either previous and customary life 
in tents, or that the new-comers would find in Canaan 
houses already built, as, in fact, is directly stated else- 
where (xix. i). An occasion for the introduction of the 
subject here may possibly have been the fact that the 
tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, 
were then in process of providing homes for their fami- 
lies and shelter for their flocks east of the Jordan 
(Num. xxxii. 16) antecedent to the passage of the river. 

Among the many provisions of the Deuteronomic 
code inculcating humanity, or conceived especially in 
a hum.ane spirit, is that regarding a complaint of 
unchastity previous to 7narriage, preferred by a husband 
against a newly married wife (xxii. 13-21). One main 
object of it seems to have been to protect an otherwise 
helpless woman against the brutality of a selfish and 

his jnother, various severe punishments might be visited upon him, even to selling him 
as slave. Cf. Hommel, ibid. p. 416. 
1 See Kleinert, ibid. p. 96 f. 



152 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

unscrupulous lord to whom she was legally bound. 
The rigorous punishment inflicted on the plaintiff, if he 
failed to make out his case, the fine (cf. Ex. xxi. 22), the 
beating (cf. Deut. xxv. 1-3), and the denial of the right 
of future separation on any terms (xxi v. 1-4), bring the 
statute into line with other enactments of the present 
code and bespeak for it the same origin. 

An extended law for a somewhat similar case is found 
in Numbers (v. 11-31) ; but the legal process is wholly 
dissimilar, and the complaining husband there goes 
unpunished. Riehm holds ^ that in the codification of 
the Deuteronomic law we have evidence that the one 
found in Numbers was already considered antiquated, 
and that hence the former belongs to a much later 
period. But the two cases are different enough in their 
nature to require different laws. Both of the laws are 
apparently based on old-time customs. The Deuter- 
onomic seems to be more changed, and, possibly, with 
special reference to that of Numbers, supplementing it, 
as it were, with the needed moral background and 
standard by which a one-sided application might be 
avoided. Without superseding it for the special case it 
had in view, it emphasizes in its heavy penalties for the 
baseless slanders of a husband a principle of equity 
there unrecognized, but which, expressed or unex- 
pressed, should always be understood to rule in similar 
circumstances. 

Israel was considered as forming a peculiar congrega- 
tion {qdhal) ^ of tJic Lord, and it is not strange that we 

1 Gesetzgel)ii7ig, etc. p. 67. 

2 This term is found nowhere else in the Pentateuch except in Num. xvi. 3; xx. 4, 
where it is used in the one instance by the promoters of Korah's rebellion and in the 
other by the people who murmur at Moses in the wilderness of Zin. In itself, it is 
thought to indicate a late origin for a document in which it occurs; and its appearance in 
Joel is one of the reasons given for assigning that work to the period of the exile. But 
tliere were good reasons f y its employment in the middle books of the rentatcuch under 



Laws Peculiar to DeiUeronomy. 153 

find at the beginning of its national life a law defini7ig 
and I'e striding its bounds (Deut. xxiii. 2-9). With a 
mixed multitude swarming in its camp, a more oppor- 
tune moment for such a law than just before the con- 
quest there could not well have been. The first provi- 
sion concerns persons unmanned by castration or other 
mutilation of the reproductive organs. Held in honor 
by contemporaneous people, they failed to meet the 
totality of the divine claim ; as they were unable also, 
in some instances, to comply with the requisition of the 
Abrahamic covenant whose seal was circumcision. 

Yet such a law would scarcely have been suggested 
to the imagination of a man eight centuries later. Even 
Samuel mentions eunuchs as among the prospective 
servants of Israelitish kings (i Sam. viii. 15). And so 
we find them at the court of Ahab (i Kings xxii. 9), of 
Joram (2 Kings viii. 6 ; ix. 32), and in the kingdom of 
Judah employed with honor by the very successor of 
Josiah (2 Kings xxiv. 12, 15). Israelites, it is likely, 
they were not ; but foreign slaves. Still their employ- 
ment is no slight symptom of altered circumstances. 
And we are not surprised to see Isaiah (Ivi. 3 ff.)^ 
advancing to a far more spiritual view, making, in fact, 
the transition to that new economy in which the 
queen of Ethiopia's eunuch becomes a distinguished 
trophy of this same " ecclesia of the Lord." 

From a special subordinate class, our law goes on to 

the historical circumstances mentioned; and there is no good reason why, later, Moses 
should not himself have adopted the word and filled it with a better spirit. Moreover, the 
principle that rules in this whole section is thoroughly Levitical. Its requirements are quite 
analogous to those respecting the qualifications of a priest (Lev. xxi. 17 ff.), as also of all 
offerings made to the Lord (xxii. 18 f. 24). And it is not the first time that the Deuter- 
onomic code has shown a marked advance beyond that of the middle books in the senti- 
ment that Israel was to be a consecrated, priestly nation (with Lev. xvii. 15 cf. Deut. 
xiv. 2l). 

^ Schultz (Das Detitero7io>niu>Ji erkl'drt, p. 569) has called attention to the coloring of 
the language in the context of Isaiah as seeming to show a dependence on Deuteronomy. 



154 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

mention nationalities that are eligible or ineligible to 
the privilege of Jewish citizenship. And here the 
impress of its time upon the document becomes still 
more decided. The attitude assumed by our lawgiver 
toward these nations does not seem unnatural, if he be 
Moses. But no writer in his senses could have 
seriously taken it after the time of Solomon. Because 
of their treatment of Israel on their march from Egypt 
(Num. XX. i8 ff. ; xxii. 5) the Ammonite and Moabite 
are forever shut out from citzenship among the chosen 
people. The Edomite is admitted to it after a short 
probation ; so, too, the Egyptian, — the former on the 
ground of kindred blood, the latter on that of hospi- 
tality to the Hebrew strangers. 

Turn now to the earliest prophets. There is scarcely 
one of them who is not found facing in a contrary 
direction. So it is with Hosea (vii. 16; viii. 13), with 
Joel (iv. 19), with Amos (iii. 9), and especially Isaiah, in 
the first forty chapters of whose prophecy there are 
nearly as many denunciations of Egypt. And Edom ! 
Considering their historical relations to Israel, nothing 
could be more friendly than the tone in which our law 
alludes to them. But we find absolutely no echo of it 
in any subsequent period, even down to the time of the 
Maccabees (i Mace. vi. 31). Saul fought with them 
(i Sam. xiv. 47) ; David, for a time, made them tribu- 
tary (2 Sam. viii. 14). Under Joram they regained 
their independence. They were the heartiest allies of 
Syria and Ephraim against Ahaz {circa B.C. 740) ; and 
never did their traditional hatred show itself more con- 
spicuously than in the siege and capture of Jerusalem 
(B.C. 588), when, in the language of the Psalmist, they 
cried out : " Raze it, raze it to the foundation thereof ! " 
(Ps. cxxxvii. 7). All the more important prophets from 



Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 155 

Obadiah and Joel to Ezekiel hold a position toward 
Edom which is the exact antithesis of that of the Deu- 
teronomic law. Which one of them, or what man of 
their time, could possibly have been the author of it ? ^ 

We come next to a brief regulation touching runa- 
way slaves of foreign masters seeking reficge in Israel 
(xxiii. 16, 17). They are not to be given up, but allowed 
to dwell unmolested wherever they will. The law is 
stamped with no indubitable marks of Mosaic origin. 
If fitness of political and moral relationships is to be 
the criterion, it might be adjusted to almost any age 
of the world, from B.C. 1800 to the present time. If 
a theory of interpolations is to be allowed free play, 
there is many a period of Israelitish history subsequent 
to Moses when it might have been fitly interjected 
among the laws of the Pentateuch. 

But why may it not be Mosaic, as it claims } It 
breathes his spirit. It is most apposite to the circum- 
stances of Israel, as themselves fugitives from Egypt. 
It harmonizes well, too, with the oft-repeated reference 
to the former thraldom. And, happily, the monuments 
furnish us with positive evidence that such a law would 
at least be no anachronism at the time of the exodus. 
In an extant treaty between Rameses II. and the king 
of the Hittites, one article relates to this very matter 
of the mutual exchange of fugitive servants. That 
Moses was acquainted with this fact, and intentionally 
forbade what it as positively required, we need not 
assert. Enough that in this case the science of 

1 We find a similar, if a less marked, change of feeling with respect to Moab indicated in 
the later times. The story of Ruth the Moabitess was probably written not long after 
the death of David. The scenes it described occurred a full hundred years earlier (Ruth 
i. 1). And, although the history represents this people as more or less inimical to Israel 
or Judah down to the latest periods, still the spirit of the Book of Ruth is clearly reflected 
in the great prophet of King Josiah's day, who, after predicting their overthrow, declares: 
•' Yet will I bring again the captivity of Moab in the latter days, saiih the Lord " (xlviii. 
47, of. xlix. 6, 7, 18). 



156 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

archaeology comes promptly forward to set a bound 
to the literary fancies that are so inclined to run riot 
among these ancient records.^ 

Of peculiar historic as well as moral interest is the 
Deuteronomic law of divorce (xxiv. 1-4). The form in 
which it is found, the character of much of the legisla- 
tion with which it is associated, as well as the very 
nature of the case, serve of themselves greatly to 
weaken the force of the objection that it is too devel- 
oped a law for the period of the exodus. Were no 
weight to be allowed to the statement in Genesis (ii. 
21-24) for the genuineness of which our Lord seems 
to vouch (Matt. xix. 4, 5, 8), that monogamy was the 
original and designed relationship of husband and 
wife, it might be expected that the relation of the sexes 
would be one of the first and principal respects in 
which a perverted nature would manifest itself. And 
we find accordingly that cognizance is taken of it in 
what purports to be the earliest history and the 
earliest laws (cf. history of Abraham and the seventh 
commandment). 

The regulation now before us, in fact, might be 
regarded as little more than a specification under the 
seventh commandment. It is remarkable alike for its 
concessive and its restrictive character. It assumes the 
prevalence of divorce — a fact also recognized in a 
number of other laws of this and the Levitical code 
(Lev. xxi. 7 ; Deut. xxii. 19, 29). It assumes that it 
was carried on with some degree of formality. And 
such a custom, with the form it took of giving a '* bill 
of divorcement," our law does not forbid ; neither does 
it command it. Herein our Lord corrected the Phari- 
sees' false quotation of the Pentateuch, changing their 
"Why did Moses command.?" into "Moses suffered." 

^ See Records of the J'dsi, iv. p. 31 f. 



Lazus Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 157 

In its restrictions, on the other hand, the law assumes 
the sacredness of the marital tie and provides against 
an obvious tendency to break and renew it at will. Its 
sole prohibition, however, is of the remarriage of 
divorced persons after a second marriage had been 
entered upon by the former wife. This, as the words 
" after that she has been defiled " (cf. Num. v. 20) indi- 
cate, it looked upon as a form of adultery and not to be 
tolerated. 

The law tends directly to the preservation of the orig- 
inal tie ; and, in case it is severed, plainly encourages 
a single life in view of a possible later reunion. It 
does not rise to the plane of Malachi (ii. 13-16), who 
declares that God "hates putting away." But neither, 
on the other hand, does it misrepresent a Moses of the 
exodus, or go beyond what might have been expected 
of a legislation that followed and flowed out of the 
ten commandments.^ 

PiLuisJimciit by flogging (Deut. xxv. 1-3, seems to 
have been resorted to in Israel chiefly for gross 
offences against sexual morality (Lev. xix. 20 ; Deut. 
xxii. 18). The spirit of the Deuteronomic law respect- 
ing it is thoroughly national in its recognition of the 
Israelitic election and brotherhood. At the same time 
the mode of inflicting the punishment by making the 
offender lie fiat- upon his face is thoroughly Egyptian 
and positively out of harmony with the later rabbinical 
practice.^ 

Levirate marriage, legally sanctioned first in Deuter- 
onomy (xxv. 5-10), had no doubt prevailed in its main 

^ The last remark is fully supported by what Is known from the monuments of ancient 
Babylonian customs. If a man would separate from his wife, who had not been untrue to 
him, he was obliged to pay her a sum of money so large that very few could have availed 
themselves of the legal right. Cf. Hommel, ihid. p. 417. 

^ See The Criininal Code of the Jeivs according to the Tahniid, IMassecheth Synhe- 
drin, by Benny. Lond. 1880, p. 122 f. 



158 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

features from the earliest times. In the narrative of 
Judah's sin with his daughter-in-law (Gen. xxxviii.), 
assigned by critics to the document JE, we find the 
practice already in force to the extent that any 
breach of it is regarded as a serious crime. Accord- 
ingly, the Levitical regulation (Lev. xviii. 16) forbid- 
ding marriage with a deceased brother's widow is 
obviously to be limited to cases where there were 
children, as also the Jews of our Lord's time under- 
stood it.i 

Not only is our law in its place in the age of Moses 
with respect to that which goes before it, but also that 
which follows. The story of Ruth, whose scene is laid 
in the period of the judges, is evidently not a little 
modified by it. The detailed proceedings of Boaz, his 
singular care to follow a certain fixed order, his appeal 
to the regular legal tribunal of his city, and the motive 
he urges for his conduct, in which he uses almost the 
very language of our code, to "raise up the name of the 
dead upon his inheritance," give at least a color of 
probability to the theory that the law of Deuteronomy 
was already a recognized authority in Palestine. 

The next independent ordinance of our codQ prescrib- 
ing pU7iish7ne7it for a gross act of immodesty on the part 
of a woman (xxv. 11, 12) offers no internal characteris- 
tics by which its age might be even approximately fixed, 
unless it be the form of the punishment. The offend- 
ing hand was to be cut off. It is the only instance in 
the Pentateuch where mutilation is directly enjoined. 
So unusual and severe a retribution for such an 
act would scarcely have been thought of in the later 
time. 

The commission for the destruction of Amaleky found 

* Vers7ts RIehm, Gcscizgi'butig; etc. p. 68. 



Laws Peculiar to DeiLterononiy. 159 

in Deuteronomy (xxv. 17-19), there can be little doubt, 
refers directly to Exodus xvii. as its basis and original. 
An entire clause of the Hebrew, and the most essential 
one, is repeated word for word. The appeal, moreover, 
is made in a way to indicate an event still fresh in 
remembrance : '' Remember ^ that which Amalek did to 
thee in the way as ye came out of Egypt." Still 
another side-light appears in an allusion to the present 
circumstances of Israel : '' So it shall come to pass that 
when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all 
thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord 
thy God is giving thee to possess as an inheritance, 
thou shalt wipe out the remembrance of Amalek from 
under heaven ; forget it not." 

If now, on the other hand, we follow the biblical his- 
tory of the relations of Israel to Amalek, subsequent 
to this supposed period of the exodus, we shall see how 
impossible and absurd it would have been for such 
directions to be seriously promulgated as late as the 
reign of Josiah or even that of Solomon. After their 
first defeat in a sharply contested battle with Joshua 
at Rephidim (Ex. xvii, 8-16), we find them joining the 
Canaanites in a successful attack on Israel at Hormah 
(Num. xiv. 43-45). Later, Balaam, in his prophecy, for 
some reason not clearly known, hails them as the "first 
of the nations," but predicts their total overthrow 
(Num. xxiv. 20). 

Another hundred years follow, and, as allies of the 
Ammonites and Moabites, they make a partially suc- 
cessful foray upon the coasts of Israel (Judges iii. 13). 
Then Gideon successfully warred with them. But it 
was not till the days of Israel's first king that the Pen- 
tateuch commission really began to be executed. In 

^ The infin. abs., like the emphatic imperative in Greek, Gesen. § 131, 4, b., is used. 



1 60 The Pentateuch : Its Orio-in and Structwe. 



i=> 



two great campaigns Saul broke their strength, wasted 
their land, and put to death their king (i Sam. xiv. 48; 
XV. 2-33). 

The entire history of this war is pervaded by the 
spirit of the ancient code. Samuel's words to the king 
are : " Thus saith Jehovah of hosts : * I am punishing 
(visiting judicially, \nipD) that which Amalek did to 
Israel. . . . Now go and cut off Amalek and utterly 
destroy all that he has ' " (Sam. xv. 2, 3). And thor- 
oughly as Saul did his work, it did not satisfy the 
terms of his commission. David dealt the hostile 
remnant a heavy blow after their capture of Ziklag, and 
in Hezekiah's time, still a century before the date 
assigned by some to the Deuteronomic code, so 
reduced and feeble had they become that five hundred 
Simeonites are able to complete their overthrow and 
extinction (i Chron. iv. 43). After this time the name 
of Amalek disappears from history. 

Our code is brought to a fitting close by a peculiar 
formula of acknowledgment and thanksgiving. It is 
professedly given to be used immediately subsequent to 
the conquest and quiet occupation of the promised land. 
Critics are not satisfied with this account which the 
document gives of itself, and see in its strong liturgical 
cast positive marks of a later day. Kleinert, however, 
among others, takes exception to this opinion as being 
unworthy of an age in which the knowledge of the 
Vedas has ceased to be a monopoly.^ It may be added 
that such an objection is unworthy of an age that has 
brought to light the stores of information contained on 
Egyptian and Assyrian monuments. 

This one simple liturgical ceremonial of Deuteronomy 
we are able, in fact, to match with many far more elabo- 

1 Das Deiiteronomiiiiii, p. 104. 



Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. i6i 

rate ones, in different tongues, that date from even an 
earlier period.^ The wonder is, indeed, not that we 
have this one simple, prescribed formula of thanksgiv- 
ing for the individual Israelite in his periodical visits to 
the central sanctuary, but that, in all the biblical litera- 
ture before the exile, it stands so much alone. We 
have really nothing of a precisely similar character with 
which to compare it. And in view of the consideration 
that prayer, in some form, must date back to the begin- 
nings of human history, it would seem the height of 
captiousness to characterize the ceremonial before us 
as an anachronism in the age of Moses.^ 

Such, now, are the independent laws of Deuteronomy, 
the primary and essential elements, as we may suppose, 
of this remarkable code. And such are a few of the 
more patent internal characteristics by which its age as 
a whole, and in its several parts, might be approxi- 
mately inferred. That they are demonstrative need not 
be held ; that, however, they show an overwhelming 
weight of probability in favor of Mosaic origin through- 
out cannot well be denied. Such an origin, in fact, is 
directly or implicitly claimed by the great majority of 
the statutes brought under review, and especially by 
those that are of chief importance. If it be denied in 
the case of the rest, is it too much to demand that ade- 

1 See especially an inscription from the tomb of Beni-Hassan, of the 12th Egyptian 
dynasty, in Warrington's When was the PentateiicJi WriUen ? p. 18 f. ; also the prayer 
of Menkaura to Osiris, dating as far back as the 5th dynasty (Wilson's The Egypt of the 
Past, Lond. 1881, p. 93), and the philosophical precepts of Ptah-hotep {I'bui. p. 107 
f.), computed to be five thousand years old; and cf. Rawlinson, The Religions of the 
Ancieiit World, p. 60 f., and 24, where he says of the religion of ancient Egypt that its 
" worship was conducted chiefly by means of rythmic litanies or hymns, in which 
prayer and praise were blended, the latter predominating." For still other specimens 
of this liturgical worship see Records of the Past, vol, ii. pp. 105, 134; vol. iv. pp. 
99-104; vol. vi. pp. 99-101; vol. viii. pp. 131-134. 

- The fact that the first-fruits are to be brought in the hands in a basket forestalls any 
objection that might arise on the ground that we have here prescribed a different disposi- 
tion of the first-fruits from that enjoined in another place (xviii. 4; cf. Num. xviii. 12 f.). 



1 62 The Pentatetich : Its Origin and Structure. 



o 



quale reasons be given for wrenching them from the 
ancient mould in which we find them imbedded ? ^ 

Mosaic claims, we are well aware, are often summarily 
dealt with in these days ; but sometimes perhaps with- 
out sufficiently pondering the consequences. The alter- 
native here, at least, does not lack in startling effects. 
If not Moses, then some one who would be thought to 
be Moses, or to write in the spirit of Moses. In either 
case, an antique flavor. Mosaic sanction is wanted. 
But why ? If the critical theories prevailing in many 
quarters be adopted, there was no Moses who was 
worthy of such pains. And why, especially, such an 
excess of Mosaic coloring in a purely legal document, 
so that it might almost be thought that the laws were a 
conceit to magnify the half-mythical hero, instead of the 
name of Moses being used to give weight to the laws ? 

If not Moses, we ask again, then who ? Some king 
of Judah or Israel .'* The history furnishes no example 
of a royal legislator ; enough, of those who broke and 
trampled upon the laws of their fathers. Possibly, some 
prophet then ? Which prophet ? His modesty in con- 
cealing his name and adopting as pseudonym that of 
the leader of the exodus is only equaled by the way in 
which he introduces the subject of prophecy in his 
work, as incidental to a law regulating magical arts. 
But why not a priest, possibly Hilkiah himself, who 
first introduces our code to the attention of his king ? 

1 So, too, Bleek, in a similar connection (EiJileitutig in das A lie Testament. Vierte 
Auflage, bearbeitet von J. Wellhausen, Berlin, 1878, p. 35) : " Wir sehen also, wie ein 
bedeutender Theil der Gesetze und Anordnungen des Pentateuchs, sowohl dem Inhalte 
als der Form nach, dem Mosaischen Zeitalter angehoren muss. Da wir nun als ein 
feststehendes sicheres Ergebniss gefunden haben, dass so bedcutende Theile des Gesetz- 
buches von Moses herriihren, dass also auf jeden Fall das Wesentlichste der darin enthal- 
tcnen Gesetzgebung ihm angehort, so sind wir nicht berechtigt, ihm einzelne der sich darin 
findenden und auf ihn zuriickgefiirhten gesetzlichen Anordnungen abzusprechen, wenn sie 
nicht bestiramte Spuren eines abweichenden Characters und einer spliteren Zeit an sich 
tragen." 



Laws Peculiar to Deuteronomy. 163 

Critics are by no means agreed among themselves 
whether the code is of priestly or prophetic origin ; it 
is too little pronounced in either direction. Priestly, 
in any decisive features, it is far enough from being ; 
quite the reverse, if its uniform point of view be 
taken account of. 

The point of view from beginning to end is conspicu- 
ously that of a tender father of his people, emphatically 
Mosaic, in short, and nothing else. That it is genuine, 
and not assumed for effect, the latest results of biblical 
archaeology unite with the best results of literary criti- 
cism in strongly confirming.^ 

^ The reasoning employed in this paper to show that the independent legislation of 
Deuteronomy is Mosaic bears with equal force agaijist the theory that it has undergone 
any special revision in a period subsequent to Moses. We find neither in form, spirit, nor 
language any valid evidence whatever of such revision in the series of laws we have 
passed under review. 



V. 

LAWS REPEATED AND MODIFIED IN 
DEUTERONOMY. 



It is absolutely essential to the scheme proposed by 
Wellhausen for the reconstruction of the Pentateuch 
that the code of Deuteronomy be found, or be made, to 
antedate that of the middle books. To talk about the 
exile as the period for the elaboration and publication of 
the latter on any other hypothesis would be the height 
of absurdity. If it can be shown, accordingly, by an 
actual comparison of the laws of the two codes with 
one another and a minute examination of each law by 
itself, using even such tests as our critics propose, that 
there is not only no necessity for such a transposition 
of the codes, but no justification for it, it must be a 
fatal blow at the hypothesis. Wellhausen's supposed 
strong position would be completely turned. He would 
be exposed to a raking fire on both flanks which it 
would be impossible for him to endure. 

I have already pointed out in my second paper that 
such critics as Ewald and Bleek among the elders, and 
Noldeke and Schrader among those of to-day, have never 
abandoned the ground that the Deuteronomic code fol- 
lows and supplements the others. And of Dillmann it 
cannot be said that this is not his position. He is far 
enough from accepting the conclusions of Wellhausen, 
though hesitating with respect to the relative order of 
certain collections of laws. Here, then, is a nucleus of 



Lazvs Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 165 

scholars and reputable critics that critics and scholars 
might rally to, in an exigency, with considerable confi- 
dence. Here is a notable defection from that wide 
movement to revolutionize Jewish history and put Ezra 
in the place of Moses which beginning with Vatke and 
Reuss has culminated in Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen. 
But, fortunately, we are not looking for a nucleus to 
rally to. It has not come as yet to the question of a 
forlorn hope. So far this is simply a battle of theories. 
The essential facts remain what they always have been. 
All parties will be compelled at last to return to them. 
It is no question of great names, nor of many names. 
It is a question of the dispassionate weighing of evi- 
dence, for which an Englishman or an American is 
every whit as capable as a German or a Frenchman ; 
and a man of good sense and sound judgment should 
count, in general, for as much as the university pro- 
fessor. 

I have shown in the third paper what appears to me 
to be the bearing of the facts, comparing code with 
code, as it respects some of the most fundamental 
assumptions of our critics. The facts do not, on any 
fair interpretation of them, support their theory respect- 
ing the Israelitish cultus : the place and form of wor- 
ship, the festivals, the priesthood and its maintenance ; 
that is, that these matters were a product of slow evo- 
lution rather than of revelation, that they were grown 
in Palestine and by the rivers of Babylon, rather than 
given at Sinai and in the Plains of Moab. Quite the 
contrary. The facts when allowed to speak, untram- 
meled and unforced, utter a unanimous and an emphatic 
no — a no of protest, and sometimes of repugnance, 
for the whole strange scheme which they have been 
used to substantiate. 



1 66 TJie PcntatetLch: Its Origin and Strncttire. 

In my fourth paper attention has been given exclu- 
sively to such laws as are peculiar to Deuteronomy. 
They have been subjected, each by itself, to a rigid 
and, as I believe, unpartisan examination. So far as 
they had anything communicable on the subject in 
hand, their response was evidently without reluctance 
and without reserve. And nearly all had something 
to communicate. With simplicity and directness they 
uniformly bore testimony, in fact, to an origin in the 
exodus period. Counter - evidence there was none 
distinguishable. 

And now, before proceeding to collate the testimony 
of the remaining laws of Deuteronomy, let attention be 
directed, for a moment, to a marked characteristic of all 
the laws of this book as well as the historical matter 
with which they are associated. I refer to the intellec- 
tual and moral stage of development which they pre- 
suppose and demand in the people whose laws they are. 
It is clearly a people who are acquainted with law and 
accustomed to its restraints. Moreover, they seem to 
be familiar with laws of this peculiar sort, where the 
civil is nowhere sharply distinguished from the reli- 
gious : with a state that is a church and a church that 
is a state, the two institutions being merged in one as 
they never have been so completely since. That is the 
impression, unmistakably, which laws and history alike 
make upon us. Let them explain it, who would make 
this the first written code for Israel and who find them- 
selves able to dispense with the Pentateuch as a record 
of facts. 

This can be no horde of savages who are here 
addressed. It is to be taken for granted that they are 
spoken to in a style, and reasoned with in a spirit, that 
are adapted to their capacity. This book with its laws 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 167 

reflects, in some good degree, as our critics themselves 
must admit, the national attainment at the period when 
it originated. Then, it was a most extraordinary 
attainment, to which the history of the period offers no 
parallel ! We find religious beliefs, habits of thought 
respecting social matters, depth of feeling, a conscious- 
ness apparently responsive to the highest motives, an 
accepted ethical system not yet antiquated, that with- 
out some such training as we are told Israel actually 
had after the escape from Egypt would be unaccount- 
able. If, in short, you take away the laws and the 
history that precede Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, 
you take away the very thing and the only thing that 
can make Deuteronomy intelligible to us.^ 

1 This matter was so well stated by Isaac Taylor ( The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, New 
York, 1862, pp. 169 ff.) nearly a quarter of a century ago, that it will bear repetition some- 
what at length. " There is much more in the last book of the Pentateuch than in the 
preceding four — regarded as a ground and moral condition of the Hebrew people of that 
time; for it consists of a series of popular addresses, orally delivered; and these, by the 
calm majesty of the style throughout, by the remonstrant tone, by innumerable allusions to 
events and usages, carry with them a demonstration of historic verity which no ingenuous 
and cultured mind will fail to admit. . . . The Israelite of that time was such that to him 
might be propounded, intelligently, the sublime theology and the rightful and truthful 
ethics of the Book of Deuteronomy; which have held their place, unrivaled, as Institutes 
of Religion, from age to age. What is our alternative on this ground? This book is 
either ' from heaven,' in its own sense, or it is from man. If from heaven, then a great con- 
troversy reaches its conclusion, by admission of the opponent; but if from man, then the 
people among whom this theology, and these ethical principles, and these institutions 
spontaneously arose, and to whose actual condition they were adapted, were a people far 
advanced beyond any other, even of later times, in their religious conceptions, in their 
moral consciousness, in their openness to remonstrance, and their sensibility toward some 
of the most refined emotions of domestic and social life. . . . Our question is, What 
were these people, or what had they become in consequence of their Egyptian sojourn? 
what in consequence of the discipline of the desert? What, upon a new generation, had 
been the influence of the Sinaitic law, and of tabernacle worship, and of the tribune 
administration of social order? Prospective as were many of the Mosaic injunctions, 
social and ecclesiastical, the theology was ripe and entire, from the first; so were the 
ethical principles, and so was the worship. The generation which then reached maturity 
along with all of younger age, from infancy upward, were the product of this religious 
and social training. . . . The Mosaic homilies are available as indirect, yet conclusive, 
evidence of a true theistic habitude of mind among the people of the Exodu.s. . . . They 
must have been a people with whom there had been matured a settled usage of theistic 
terms, devout habitudes, and withal a diffused warmth of those social sentiments which 
are consequent upon, and which are the proper results of, an expansion of the domestic 
affections." 



1 68 The Pentateuch: Its Orio^in and Stntcture. 



<:> 



But our review of the laws of Deuteronomy is not 
yet complete. There are still others among them, like 
those treated in the third paper, which relate to topics 
common to the legislation of the middle books. Differ- 
ent laws, or a different recension of laws on the same 
theme ! What an opportunity is offered for the discov- 
ery of stratification and marks of epochs, if any such 
exist ! Which is the original form t 

I have put at the head of this paper the result 
reached after careful investigation. The laws of Deu- 
teronomy appear but as an authoritative restatement, 
and appropriate modification, of those that immediately 
precede them in the Pentateuch. The Mosaic tradition 
that from the first has covered and hallowed both is 
abundantly confirmed. How this conclusion has been 
reached I now proceed to show. 

Destruction of Idols and of Heathen Shrines in 
Canaan. — The code of laws found in Deuteronomy is 
consistently introduced (xii. i) with the words : "These 
are the statutes and judgments which ye shall observe 
and keep in the land which the Lord God of thy fathers 
giveth thee as a possession." The first requirement is 
no less so (vs. 2-4) : " Thou shalt utterly destroy all 
places where the nations whom thou drivest out serve 
their gods," etc. It is something to which attention 
had been already repeatedly called in the preliminary 
history (iv. 15-19; vii. 5, 25, 26), and to which the 
present code also, under another form, reverts in this 
and a subsequent chapter (xii. 29, 30; xx. 18). Such 
a requirement, moreover, was naturally to be expected 
when the essential character of the Israelitic religion is 
considered as contrasted with that of the Canaanites. 
That it is found in all phases of the Pentateuch legis- 
lation will not surprise us when we reflect on the 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Dtuteronomy. 169 

extreme difBculties that, notwithstanding, always at- 
tended its execution, even down to the exile (Judges 
ii. 2; viii. 2^-Q.y \ xviii. 11 f . ; i Kings xii. 25 f.). 

The Deuteronomic form is somewhat more pictorial 
and detailed, but it is no more emphatic, than that of 
the Book cf the Covenant (Ex. xxiii. 24; cf. vs. 33; 
xxxiv. 12-17), or that of the middle books (Num. xxxiii. 
51, 52), and covers in general the same ground. We 
have alone in Deuteronomy and Exodus an allusion 
to the peculiar image of Astarte, falsely rendered 
"groves" in the common version, and in Numbers 
certain forms of idolatry are mentioned which do not 
appear in the other books. But as the former does not 
indicate a kind of false religion prevalent only in the 
earlier times, so the latter just as little are evidence of 
a later origin for the literature containing them. 

The "Bamoth"of Numbers (cf. Lev. xxvi. 30) are 
no doubt included in the more circumstantial descrip- 
tion of Deuteronomy : " All the places wherein the 
nations . . . served their gods, upon the high moun- 
tains and upon the hills." And while the word masJi- 
kitJi (Lev. xxvi. i) is not unknown to other biblical 
books (Prov. xviii. 11 ; xxv. 11), the thought expressed 
by it here in connection with " stone," whether it be 
that of an engraved stone or of an image made of 
stone, can only suggest the rudest forms of idolatry, 
which would hardly have been first introduced at the 
time of the exile. Here, then, while we find the three 
codes differing, it is without disharmony. Each has its 
peculiar characteristics, and gives in its own way the 
one charge against the idolatry of Canaan ; but evi- 
dences of conflict or of widely diverse circumstances of 
time and place there are none. 

The Woj'sliip of MoIocJl — Moloch (called also 



1 70 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Molech, Milcom, Malcom, in the Bible) was a fire-god, 
allied to Baal, and the tutelary divinity of the Ammon- 
ites. This people, as such, are first mentioned in 
Deuteronomy (ii. 20 ; cf. Gen. xix. 38), and continued 
to exist as a distinct nation down to the time of the 
Maccabees (i Mace. v. 6). In just what the worship of 
Moloch consisted is not altogether clear. The weight 
of authority inclines to the view that children, having 
first been put to death, were actually consumed by 
fire in his honor.^ 

Now, of the several codes, that of Exodus has noth- 
ing to say of this special form of idolatry. Deuter- 
onomy refers to it twice (xii. 31 ; xviii. 10) : in the first 
instance, however, only in the form of an allusion to 
a horrible and apparently well-known custom of the 
heathen, without prohibiting it. In the second case, it 
is prohibited, but in the most general terms, and as 
subordinate to another and the principal matter. In 
neither case is the name of the god, which must have 
been familiar (cf. Amos v. 26), so much as mentioned. 

In the middle books, on the other hand (Lev. xviii. 
21 ; XX. 2-5), the law appears in definite shape, and the 
name of the god is made particularly prominent, being 
found in both passages, and three times repeated in the 
longer one. Under such circumstances, it cannot be 
doubtful which form of the law is original ; or better, 
which is the law, and which the warning that is based 
upon it. That of Leviticus is presupposed in Deuter- 
onomy. As a statute, the latter would be quite too 
indefinite without the other ; in fact, it would be 
unintelligible. 

It may be noted also, in passing, that we have here 
in Leviticus itself an example of the repetition of a 

1 Cf. Dillmann, Co>n., in loco; and Schrader, s.7'. in Richin's Uandivortcrbuch. 



Laws Repeated and Modified iji Deuteronomy. 171 

law in an enlarged form — a proceeding which the later 
critics find so difficult to understand, in the case of 
separate books of the Pentateuch, on the supposition 
that they all originated in the Mosaic period. It is 
assumed that this Levitical legislation belongs to one, 
and that a late, period. Why, then, this iteration 
within the space of two chapters } 

It is not to be overlooked that with the Hebrew 
there was no stronger form of emphasis than just such 
a repetition. In this case, therefore, as in others, it 
was with them no literary defect to repeat a law which 
was to be modified or amended, or to repeat a law with- 
out essential change to which special importance was 
attached ; its importance was thereby only the more 
enhanced. 

We find moreover, in one of these passages (Lev. xx. 
4, 5), the possibility intimated in the very law itself 
that it might not be executed, and provision made for 
such a contingency. With what propriety, then, can 
the failure to execute a law of the Pentateuch be con- 
sidered as conclusive evidence of the non-existence of 
that law } 

Still further, there is abundant evidence that the 
present law, whether first promulgated in Moses' time 
or in Josiah's time, was at no time fully obeyed, up to 
the period of the captivity, and even later (i Kings xi. 
5 ; 2 Kings iii. 27 ; xvi. 3 ; Isa. xxx. 33 ; Jer. vii. 31 ; 
Zeph. i. 5). 

Destruction of Canaanitish Cities. — With a regula- 
tion peculiar to itself concerning other cities on which 
war should be made (xx. 10-15), the Deuteronomic code 
combines, also, rules of warfare to be observed in the 
case of the cities of Canaan (xiii. 13-19; xx. 15-18, 19, 
20 ; cf. vii. 1-6). In this particular, however, it had 



1/2 TJie Pentateuch:- Its Origi?i and Stnictitre. 

been anticipated by the previous books (Ex. xxiii. 23, 
24, 27-33; xxxiv. 12-16; Num. xxxiii. 50-56), and 
while repeating for substance the injunctions there laid 
down, it directly refers to them in the words : ''As the 
Lord thy God hath commanded thee" (Deut. xx. 18). 
It might be claimed, it is true, that this citation is only 
of the Book of the Covenant. But there is nothing 
gained by excluding the passage in Numbers. It con- 
tains nothing new or peculiar of any sort by which 
a later origin could be predicated for it. 

The Deuteronomic law, moreover, plainly distin- 
guishes in its introduction between a new and an old 
element in itself. "Thus shalt thou do unto all the 
cities very far off from thee, which are not ... of 
these nations here. [Note the correspondence with 
the supposed situation of Moses.] But of the cities of 
these peoples . . . thou shalt save alive nothing that 
breathes, ... as the Lord thy God hath commanded 
thee" (vs. 15-17). The sweeping form of the com- 
mand, too, agrees better with Numbers than with Exo- 
dus, where a gradual driving out is in view. *' By 
little and little I will drive them out from before thee, 
until thou be increased and inherit the land " (Ex. xxiii. 
30). And it may be remarked, incidentally, that this 
law, in any of its three forms, would be an anachronism 
in any period of Israelitish history subsequent to the 
time of David. 

Forbidden Mourning Customs. — In Deut. xiv. i, 2, we 
find heathenish mourning customs forbidden, such as 
shaving the head and cutting the flesh. The motive 
assigned is that Israel is a holy people to the Lord their 
God, and has been chosen by him for a peculiar posses- 
sion from all the peoples of the earth. Parallel pas- 
sages are alone found in Leviticus (xix. 27, 28 ; xxi. 5, 



Laws Repeated and Modified m Deitteronoiny. i J^ 

the latter for the priests), and they show no essential 
differences, certainly none that indicate a later origin. 
There is nothing, indeed, to stand in the way of the 
common view that the Deuteronomic law here is a 
repetition of the Levitical and that both belong to the 
earliest period. On the contrary, it is strongly sup- 
ported by the marked hortatory and rhetorical charac- 
ter of the former, nicely harmonizing, as it does, with 
the supposed circumstances of its promulgation. 

We find, moreover, in this connection a striking dis- 
proof of the position that the code of Deuteronomy 
originated in Josiah's time. The prophet Jeremiah 
began his work in the eleventh year of this king's reign. 
And yet we discover numerous passages (vii. 29 ; xvi. 6 ; 
xli. 5 ; xlvii. 5 ; xlviii. 37) in his prophecy where the 
mourning customs — here so emphatically forbidden — 
are recognized as fully in vogue, and the prophet's atti- 
tude toward them is by no means such as it must nec- 
essarily have been if they had been the product of his 
own age, or, much more (as some suppose), of his own 
pen. It is simply one instance, of many, where a law 
of the Pentateuch had so far fallen into disuse that even 
a true prophet could seem to act in almost total uncon- 
sciousness of it. 

Food as Clean and Unclean. — The long passage, 
Deut. xiv. 3-20, treats of the various kinds of food 
which the Israelites were forbidden or allowed to eat, 
and there is every reason for believing that it is based 
on the still longer passage. Lev. xi. 1-2 1, 22-43, where 
alone in the Pentateuch, outside of Deuteronomy, this 
most important topic of the ceremonial law is dealt 
with. Such a conclusion is forced upon us not alone 
by the minute dependence of the Deuteronomic form of 
the law, in the matter of arrangement and language, 



1 74 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

on that of Leviticus, but also, and especially, by its 
noteworthy variations. For example, Deuteronomy, 
instead of saying with Leviticus, simply, that all quad- 
rupeds that divide the hoof and chew the cud may be 
used as food, proceeds to specify, as well it might on 
the entrance into Canaan, a number of varieties under 
this head. 

Then, secondly, while faithfully enumerating the 
three classes — quadrupeds, fishes, and fowls — of 
Leviticus prohibited as food, it omits to mention 
a fourth .class, reptiles, eight species of which are 
forbidden in that code. Still further, it passes over in 
silence a list of insects, including locusts, that in 
Leviticus are allowed as food. Now, both the additions 
and omissions are significant, being precisely such 
as might most naturally have been expected under the 
circumstances. 

In Canaan, into which the sons of Israel are just now 
passing, the quadrupeds particularly named in Deuter- 
onomy are those which would be their main dependence 
for food. On the other hand, the reptiles prohibited in 
Leviticus, but passed over in Deuteronomy, are such as 
in their new home they would have neither occasion 
nor desire to eat. While the several varieties of locusts 
allowed to be eaten by the Levitical legislation (xi. 22, 
23), and the following details (vs. 24-43), ^.re appar- 
ently left unnoticed in Deuteronomy for the reason 
given by Riehm,i because it contents itself with calling 
attention, to this extent, to the express provisions of 
the old law as found in Leviticus. Indeed, the enlarge- 
ment in Leviticus is devoted merely to an explanation 
of what is meant by "every creeping thing that flieth," 
forbidden in both codes. At least the practice of John 

^ Gesetzgebiing Mosis, etc. p. 56. 



Lazvs Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 1 75 

the Baptist (Matt. iii. 4) shows that the omission in 
Deuteronomy to cite locusts as permitted food was not 
understood as an interdiction of them.^ 

Animals Eaten to be Properly Slaughtered. — With the 
law just noticed there fitly connects itself this one for- 
bidding as food the flesh of animals accidentally killed 
or dying a natural death. It is really the old Noachian 
precept (Gen. ix. 4) in another form, which forbade eat- 
ing the blood with the flesh (cf. Deut. xii. 16, 24; xv. 
23), and which was held by the Jews of later times to 
be binding on all proselytes (cf. Acts xv. 20, 29 ; xxi. 
25). The present enactment is found in each of the 
three codes, but with considerable difference of detail. 
The differences will be best displayed by placing the 
several codes side by side. 

Ex. xxii. 30. Lev. xvii. 15. Deut. xiv. 21. 

" Flesh torn in the Jield " Every soul that eats of " Ye shall not eat of a car- 

ye shall not eat ; ye shall a carcase or what was torn case: to the stranger who is 

cast it to the dogs.''' of -wild beasts, be he citi- in thy gates thou shalt give 

zen or stranger, . . . shall zV, that he may eat it ; or thou 

— be unclea7i until the even- mayest sell it to the for- 

ing," eigner." 

One thing strikes us at once on looking at these laws, 
and is very instructive as it respects the form of the 
Pentateuch legislation as a whole, that, while the same 
general principle underlies them all, there has not been 

1 But this not all. An evident textual variation already alluded to (see p. 20 above) 
sets almost beyond doubt the dependence of the Deuteronomic form of the law on the 
other. Ill the Levitical code (vs. 14), according to the common version, the following 
species of unclean birds are named: " the vulture and the kite, after its kind." In Deu- 
teronomy (vs. 13) these become: " And the glede, and the kite, and .he vulture, after its 
kind." If, now, we place the original words of both codes, as they appear in the present 
text, side by side, we shall see how the discrepancy was possible and most likely arose. 
A copyist read in Deuteronomy r for d, a most natural and not infrequent confusion of 
letters; and then he added the word for vulture in its phonetic form, since being found in 
Leviticus, this species could not be properly omitted here. The Targum of Deuteronomy 
and the Vulgate agree, indeed, with the present text. But the Samaritan Pentateuch 
and the LXX., as well as four Hebrews mss. cited by Kennicott, read in harmony with 
Leviticus, " the vulture," as the first species, instead of" the glede," and it seems reason- 
ably certain that this was the original text of both codes. 



I jG The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncture. 

the least apparent effort made to bring them into a 
merely formal, literary harmony. They seem to have 
been confidently entrusted, just as they are, not only to 
the good sense, but to the good will, of contemporaries 
and of posterity. Their very diversity of form, like the 
costumes of strange peoples mingled together in the 
same city, often enables us the better to localize them 
and assign them their true place in the history of 
Israel. 

In the present case there is nothing strange in the 
fact that the more technical and concise Levitical code, 
followed here by Deuteronomy, should use the term 
"carcase" instead of the circumlocution of Exodus, or 
that it should otherwise repeat, as not overlooking it, 
the prohibition in its original form. Again, it is not 
singular, but quite in keeping with the circumstances, 
that the law in its Levitical shape, as applicable espe- 
cially to life in camp, should put both citizens and 
strangers under the same rule ; while the Deuteronomic, 
looking toward changed conditions in Palestine, takes 
on a considerably milder form as it respects the latter. 
In fact, the permission to sell the carcases of fallen 
animals to ''foreigners" would have been without 
special pertinence during the forty years' wanderings. 
Such a class was then almost entirely wanting ; while 
the "stranger," that is, sojourner and possible proselyte, 
belonging to a wholly different category, was necessa- 
rily subjected, as we have seen, to Israelitish laws. 

Moreover, it is natural, and fully answers to supposed 
historical relations, that in Leviticus, the law for the 
priest alone excepted (xxii. 8), there should be a letting 
up in the severity of the restrictions imposed in the 
matter before us, with clear reference again to the 
difficulty of obtaining food of any sort during the long 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy, i J J 

sojourn in the wilderness ; while in both the earliest 
and latest forms of the law, no such contingency being 
directly in view, the prohibition is absolute. For it is 
clear that mere ceremonial uncleanness, from which one 
might be freed by simple ablutions in water, and last- 
ing only until evening, could not have been regarded as 
a complete interdiction. And, finally, it is no surprise 
to find the more developed form of the law in Deuter- 
onomy, rather than Exodus. It is true that both alike 
are of the nature of prohibitions, but it is only this 
one of all the codes that makes the distinction between 
Israelites and strangers. This shows a growth in the 
sentiment that the people of God were to be a holy 
people. 

The Sabbatic Year. — The term " Sabbatic Year " is 
found only in Leviticus ; but there is no doubt that the 
same thing is referred to in all the three constituent 
parts of the legislation (Ex. xxiii. 9-1 1; Lev. xxv. 
1-7; Deut. XV. i-ii). That of Exodus could not, 
indeed, be properly understood, might be open to a 
wholly false interpretation, without the limitations 
offered by the code of the middle books. That of 
Deuteronomy is no less dependent, being really a 
result of experience in the practical workings of the 
law. For the temporary release of a poor debtor had 
come to be demanded from the circumstance that 
during the Sabbatic year he was naturally less able to 
meet any indebtedness which he might have incurred. 

To say, with some, that the code in Exodus recog- 
nizes no absolute period of rest of this sort for the 
whole people and land at once is to overlook the con- 
text (vs. 12), where the obligatory rest of the Sabbath 
directly appears as the norm of the new regulation. It 
is true that the Levitical code positively enjoins rest 



I yS The Pejitateuck : Its Origin and Structure. 

on the seventh year, while that of Exodus does so only 
constructively ; nevertheless, it does it. The command 
to sow the fields six years, taken in connection with 
the fact that one might not harvest crops on the 
seventh year, might be considered an indirect, but it is 
no less a real, injunction to desist from agricultural 
pursuits during that year. 

As thus considered, the three forms of the law nicely 
fit together, like so many mutually dependent pieces of 
a mechanism. To substitute one for the other, or 
to regard them as representing a slow development, 
the form in Leviticus being the final outcome, is clearly 
impossible. The close relation of Deuteronomy to 
Exodus here is shown by the unusual word, rendered 
"let lie fallow," occurring in both, and in the entire 
Pentateuch only found in these sections ; while to the 
code of Leviticus it holds, as we have already inti- 
mated, the relevancy of a by-law, intended to guard 
against a possible evil consequence of the original 
enactment. 

It may be observed, moreover, incidentally, that the 
Deuteronomic tithe enjoined for every third year 
(xiv. 28, 29) seems to presuppose the institution of the 
Sabbatic year as such. Otherwise there would be 
needful a double system of reckoning : one on the basis 
of seven years with respect to the year of release, and 
one on the basis of three years with respect to the 
tithe. Now, the two exactly harmonize in the cycle of 
seven years, the special tithe falling on the third and 
sixth, and there being none at all on the seventh, year. 

Release of Hebrew Servants. — Associated with the 
Sabbatic year and the law concerning the release of 
debtors we find an enactment relating to the discharge 
of Hebrew servants. As a rule such service was in 



Lazvs Repeated and Modified in DeiUeronomy. 1 79 

repayment of debts, the meeting of which was other- 
wise impossible. Each of the three codes takes cogni- 
zance of the matter, devoting to it nearly the same 
amount of space, but in other respects having many 
points of divergencie, though all are within the bounds 
of perfect harmony (Ex. xxi. 2-6 ; Lev. xxv. 39-46 ; 
Deut. XV. 12-18). It is with these divergences that we 
have here principally to do. 

Exodus, for example, speaks only of Hebrew men as 
servants ; so, too, Leviticus. But Deuteronomy speci- 
fies also women of the nation, who, in a similar way 
and for a similar reason, may have sold themselves into 
bondage to their Hebrew brethren. The first code, 
again, enjoins that after six years of continuous service 
— having no direct reference, however, to the Sabbatic 
year — these bondmen are to go free. As they came, 
so are they to go ; that is, without compensation from 
their masters. With this — excepting only a new 
period of release to be hereafter noted — Leviticus 
agrees. Deuteronomy, however, as in the former case, 
has an important addition. Exactly as they came they 
are not to go. They are to be set free, but not sent 
away empty. They are to be "loaded down" with 
gifts from the flock, the threshing-floor, and wine-press, 
in remembrance of the fact of a once common bondage 
in Egypt. 

The first code, still further, commands that in case 
a Hebrew servant elects to remain permanently in the 
service of the Hebrew master, a contract to that effect 
may be made, slave and master appearing before the 
Lord (that is, the priest or judge who represented him), 
and the master there, against the post of the door, 
boring with an awl the ear of his slave as a symbol of 
his servitude. Of this Leviticus has nothing, another 



1 80 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

limitation already hinted at, the year of jubilee, being 
in view. And Deuteronomy, properly enough from its 
new point of observation, changes it in so far as that it 
does not require, in the ceremony described, appearing 
"before the Lord." It might be performed, in the 
case of menservants and maidservants alike, at the 
owner's house. Now, thus far, excepting only the pro- 
vision respecting the year of jubilee, whose relations 
to the present law remain to be considered, there is 
nothing that requires any disturbance of the relative 
position of the codes, as fixed by tradition and history. 
There is only the natural expansion in Deuteronomy 
which its whole spirit and the alleged circumstances of 
its origin might have led us to expect. 

As yet, however, we have failed to notice a pecu- 
liarity of Leviticus besides its introduction of the year 
of jubilee, which, according to some, shows a develop- 
ment beyond the plane of Deuteronomy. It forbids in 
the most emphatic language treating the Hebrew 
brother as a slave (vs. 39, 42, 45). It is not for a 
moment to be forgotten that he is still a '' brother of 
the children of Israel." I have called this a peculiarity 
of Leviticus. It is so only in outward form. The 
spirit of it appears just as clearly in Deuteronomy, and 
the form in which it is there clothed is not one whit 
less striking or impressive. He is to be enriched with 
presents on the ground of a common brotherhood and 
a former common thraldom in Egypt. The author of 
Deuteronomy, with the passage in Leviticus before his 
eyes, might, indeed, have consciously and deliberately 
chosen so to express himself, putting thus in the 
concrete and in the form of an illustration what is 
there abstractly enjoined. 

But how is to be explained the provision of Leviticus 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 1 8 1 

that a Hebrew servant is to remain with his master till 
the year of jubilee? Is it not a clear contradiction of 
that which speaks of a term of six years and of the 
so-called perpetual servitude of the other codes ? By 
no means. It simply offers still another limitation to 
the principal injunction of the code, showing, in fact, 
how it was related to the year of jubilee. The obser- 
vance of such a year had been independently enjoined 
(Lev. XXV.). It was to forestall possible conflict, not to 
precipitate it, that the matter is here treated. The law 
respecting six years of service is not repealed, but so 
far modified, as well as that of otherwise life-long servi- 
tude, as that both kinds of service should terminate 
with the year of jubilee.i 

To suppose that the Levitical code was meant to 
stand by itself, as a later form of the other two, is to be 
guilty of the absurdity of supposing that any one in 
that later period could be capable, in the face of his 
own appeal for brotherly consideration and leniency, of 
condemning a Hebrew servant, willing or not, to serve 
out the whole period, long or short, that preceded the 
year of jubilee. Hence the only reasonable conclusion 
is that these different forms of the law, as in other 
cases, were simply meant to supplement, and not to 
obstruct or supersede, one another. 

Animal Sacrifices to be Faidtless. — The Deuteron- 
omic code (xvii. i; cf. xv. 21) like the Levitical (xxii. 
19-27) allows for sacrifice only such animals as are 
absolutely without blemish. The same general term 
is used in the original of both codes for blemish ; but 
the Levitical alone gives anything like a detailed list 
of defects to be reckoned under that category. How 

1 The slave then received back his forfeited landed property, etc., and there was no 
longer any occasion for his being a slave. 



1 82 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Striicture, 

either priest or layman could have determined what, in 
the eye of the law, constituted a blemish without some 
such guide as is furnished by the legislation of the 
middle books of the Pentateuch, it is not easy to see. 
Deuteronomy furnishes only a hint in that direction, 
and in its almost studied generalization seems clearly 
to presuppose information as obtainable from other 
sources. Malachi (i. 8) is the first of the prophets to 
refer definitely to the subject, and it is in such a way as 
to give anything but encouragement to the theory of 
a post-exilian origin of the law in Leviticus. 

Oppression of the Poor and Strangers. — A series of 
enactments enjoining kind treatment of the poor and 
strangers appears in each of the several codes. All are 
of like tenor. That of Exodus (xxii. 21-24) treats of 
the stranger, the widow, and fatherless : to mishandle 
or afflict them is to expose one's self to the severest 
visitations of the divine judgments. Leviticus (xix. 
I3j 33> 34) 3.nd Deuteronomy alike (xxiv. 14, 15 ; cf. xvi. 
19, 20) direct attention particularly to hired servants, 
whether citizens or strangers : their wages are to be 
promptly paid and they are to be in nowise oppressed. 
Both the latter codes are remarkable for the motives 
given for obedience. The former says (vs. 33) : " The 
stranger that dwelleth with you shall be as one born 
among you ; . . . for ye were strangers in the land 
of Egypt." The latter (vs. 15): "For he is poor, 
and setteth his heart upon it [the money due] ; lest 
he cry against thee to the Lord, and it be a sin 
unto thee." 

There is nothing here to show that the Levitical 
law is a later development, but rather the reverse. It 
alone of the three glances backward to the land of 
Egypt. Yet this must be looked upon as simply fortui- 



Laws Repeated and Modified in D enter onomy. 183 

tons. The three forms of the law are all from one 
period, and only serve to enforce by repetition and the 
urging of different incentives the same obligation of 
tenderness toward the weak and helpless. 

NiLinber of Witnesses in Capital Cases. — The Deu- 
teronomic law relating to idolatry (xvii. 2-7 ; xiii. 1-19) 
is, in general, but an expansion of the brief regulation 
of the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxii. 19). It has one 
important specification, however, in which it covers 
ground common with that of the middle books. In 
Numbers (xxxv. 30) it is forbidden to put to death one 
charged with murder on the testimony of a single wit- 
ness ; there must be witnesses. In Deuteronomy (xvii. 
6 ; cf. xix. 15), on the other hand, the number of wit- 
nesses declared to be necessary in such cases is fixed 
expressly at two or three ; and, still further, it is made 
binding on these witnesses, in the execution of the 
sentence, to raise their own hands first against the 
criminal. 

Can it be considered in any sense probable that the 
legislation in Numbers originated after that of Deuter- 
onomy, especially in view of the uniform Jewish prac- 
tice, which was undoubtedly based on Deuteronomy 
(John viii. 17 ; Acts vii. 58 ; Heb. x. 28) } In my intro- 
duction to the Additions to Daniel ^ it is shown to be 
likely that the Book of Susanna had for its real object 
a reform in the method of conducting legal processes, 
and especially to correct abuses springing from the 
dominance of the principle that two witnesses were 
sufficient to convict of the most heinous offences.^ 

1 Old Testajnent Apocrypha, New York, 1880, p. 447. 

- The somewhat indefinite form of the law even in Deuteronomy would naturally lead to 
discussion among those so much given to it as the later rabbins. Besides it was a matter 
of life and death and it was to be expected that every possible point would be hotly con- 
tested. The question of priority, however, as between the two forms of the law, here turns, 
as it seems to me, not exclusively on later usage, but, also and especially, on the fact that 



1 84 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Magical Arts and Divination. — There was nothing 
more common among all the peoples of antiquity, 
including the inhabitants of Canaan and adjacent 
lands, than the practice of magic in some of its 
numerous forms. Ancient Egypt abounded in it, and 
the monuments of Assyria and Babylon show that 
these nations in their religious, social, and even politi- 
cal, life were no less under its influence. And as one of 
the most subtle and fascinating forms of idolatry, it was 
natural that the Mosaic law should take cognizance of 
it, and denounce the severest penalties against it. In 
this particular all the codes agree ; there is not one of 
them that does not adjudge so gross a violation of its 
fundamental principles as worthy of death (Ex. xxii. 
17; Lev. xix. 26, 31; XX. 6, 27; cf. Num. xxiii. 23; 
Deut. xviii. 9-14). 

But there is a marked gradation in the fulness and 
emphasis with which the several books characterize 
this sin. Exodus speaks only of the female magician ; 
Leviticus and Numbers of five other sorts ; while Deu- 
teronomy combines in its list all of them together under 
their technical names (using the masculine form, how- 
ever), adds to them three other kinds not found in the 

the Deuteronomic law is the Tnore coijiplete. It is true that in other instances, not a few 
indeed in this very paper, the fact of an undeveloped form of a law in Deuteronomy has 
been taken as presupposing and pointing to a prior more developed form to be found else- 
where, namely, in the middle books. Why may not then the brevity of the law in 
Numbers in this case presuppose an older and fully developed law in Deuteronomy ? 
Because the cases are really very different. In the one, we are adjusting facts to the 
theory that the Deuteronomic code is a somewhat later repetition and supplementary 
popular form of that of the middle books. In the other case, to the theory that the laws 
of the middle books are a much later, fiilly developed, officially promulgated Priests' 
Code. In such a code it could not be expected that a law of this character, especially 
involving the functions of priests, would be found having the relation of this one to Deu- 
teronomy. If it could be shown in the other cases mentioned that, notwithstanding the 
contrary averment of the history connected with the laws, the forms of the law found in 
Deuteronomy accord better with the hypothesis of a gradual development of such laws 
into those of the middle books, such a process of reasoning would not apply here where 
the more developed and precise form is found to be the one alleged to be earlier. 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Detitei'onomy. 185 

parallel accounts, and puts the sin on a level with the 
offering of human sacrifices. There is but one conclu- 
sion to be drawn from such a fact, and it is far enough 
from agreeing with that theory of gradual development 
for these laws, with Leviticus and Numbers at its crown, 
that has sprung up in our times. 

The history of the matter as it appears in the 
Hebrew literature is quite as irreconcilable a factor in 
such a theory. Centuries previous to the time when, 
according to our critics, the code of Deuteronomy 
began to have force, during the reign of Israel's first 
king (i Sam. xv. 23 ; xxviii. 7-9), we already find its 
severe penalties executed against this crime ; and long 
after the supposed post-exilian introduction of the 
Levitical legislation it still continues to flourish, and 
remains a prominent sin of the intractable people of 
the exodus down to the Christian era (Zech. x. 2 ; 
Mai. iii. 25).^ 

Cities of Refuge^ — Not less prevalent than supersti- 
tion and idolatry among the peoples with whom Israel 
had to do was the immemorial practice of blood-revenge. 
The Shemitic races, it is well known, were particularly 
given to it, and are so to this day. To what terrible 
excesses it naturally led, since retaliation in its turn 
provoked retaliation, what wild feuds arose among fam- 
ilies, which could only be suppressed by their total 
extermination, may readily be conceived ; in fact, is 
matter of history, sacred as well as profane. This ter- 
rible custom, now, the Mosaic laws aimed not to do 
away with, for it was founded in a natural and proper 
sentiment of justice, but to restrict and regulate in 
keeping with the spirit of all its institutions. Murder 
was a crime against society, indeed, but a greater crime 

1 Cf. Hamburger, s.v. " Zauberei" in Real-Ejicyc. fllr Bibel und Talmud 



1 86 The Pentateuch : Its Orinn and StriLCtun 



against God. He would avenge. The man-slayer 
should be his instrument, and no longer self-appointed 
and self-moved. At the same time there must be scru- 
pulous care exercised. It was only the guilty who 
should suffer. Provision should be made not only that 
fathers should not be put to death for sons and sons for 
fathers (Deut. xxiv. i6), but to rescue the involuntary 
homicide himself from the hands of offended relatives 
while their "blood was hot." This was the real occa- 
sion for the cities of refuge. 

The three codes present the matter much as we 
might expect them to do on the supposition that they 
appear in chronological order, and that all of them 
originated within the Mosaic period. The Book of the 
Covenant (Ex. xxi. 13) recognizes the necessity for a 
law on the subject, and announces that some place will 
be provided to which one accidentally taking the life of 
another may flee and be safe. In the fuller legislation 
of the Book of Numbers (xxxv. 1-38), in natural con- 
nection with instructions concerning the Levitical cities, 
such provision is duly made, and a sufficient number of 
conveniently situated asylums of this sort appointed. 
In Deuteronomy (iv. 41-43) we find Moses, in harmony 
with the law of the middle books, designating three 
cities of refuge on the eastern side of the Jordan ; and 
subsequently, Joshua (Josh. xxi. 13, 21, 27) selecting 
the other three called for by the statutes on the 
western side. 

The Deuteronomic code (xix. 1-13 ; cf. xxiv. 16), evi- 
dently presupposing what Moses is recorded as doing 
previously (iv. 41-43), is much of the nature of a com- 
mentary on the law in Numbers. It makes still more 
explicit by illustration what class of persons might find 
domicile within the refuge cities (vs. 4, 5) ; gives com- 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy, i ^J 

prehensive, though brief, directions for rendering the 
cities easily accessible, and, what is more important of 
all for our investigations, adds the concession that, on 
certain conditions, three cities more, making nine in 
all, may be used for this purpose. The conditions are 
that the people prove obedient and faithful — which, 
unhappily, they do not — and their boundaries are ulti- 
mately enlarged to the extent promised to Abraham 
(Gen. XV. i8). 

In this provision for additional cities found in Deu- 
teronomy critics like Wellhausen profess to find a 
special stumbling-block. They do not see how it is 
possible that such a concession could have been made 
in Deuteronomy, if it be the latest form of the law, in 
the face of the allotment of but six cities for this pur- 
pose in Numbers. It is only, however, because they 
are unwilling to acknowledge that Moses was equally 
concerned in both codes. If it be granted, as it should 
be, that he was fully competent (always, of course, 
under divine direction) to modify, as circumstances 
might demand, his own earlier regulations, the difficulty 
at once disappears. 

On the other hand, from their own point of view, we 
do not see how the difficulty is made any less serious 
by supposing that the legislation of Numbers, if it fol- 
lowed long after that of Deuteronomy, would venture 
so to counterwork established and ostensibly Mosaic 
institutions as to ordain that three of its six cities of 
refuge should be on the eastern side and three on the 
western side of the Jordan, when the Deuteronomic 
code (xix. 7-9), taken by itself, as it is assumed it 
should be, allows but three cities altogether for such a 
purpose, or six on the western side on conditions that 
were never actually complied with. No one can fail to 



The PentateitcJi : Its Origin and StriLcttire. 



see that this horn of the dilemma is fully as embar- 
rassing as the other.^ 

Bearing False Witness. — In addition to the regula- 
tion already considered concerning the number of 
witnesses needful to establish capital offences, there 
is another in the Pentateuch relating to the bearing of 
false witness. Its first appearance is in the decalogue 
itself, and then again in the same Book of the Cove- 
nant (Ex. xxiii. I, 3), forming what Ewald and others 
name a ''pentade," that is, a law having five separate 
injunctions, all sustaining a relation more or less close 
with a central theme. The "pentade" here, however, 
is somewhat arbitrarily made up, and might be consid- 
erably enlarged by adding the prohibitions recorded or 
implied in vs. 6, 8, immediately following. The same 
topic is taken up in Leviticus (xix. 11, 15, 16), but in 
a very general way, covering in the main the same 
ground, but with no greater fulness, and much less 
definiteness, than Exodus. 

It is not till we come to Deuteronomy (xix. 16, 21) 

1 A scholarly friend, whose life has been given to the critical study of the Old and New 
Testaments, sends me the following criticism on the view taken in this section: " I am not 
at all sure of your interpretation of the number of the cities of refuge. It depends upon 
the priority of Num. xxxv. to Deut. xix. Both were spoken * in the plain of Moab ' and 
must have been not far from one another in time. Now if we can suppose Deut. xix. 1-13 
to have been spoken before the conquest of the transjordanic territory, all will be clear. 
Moses provides absolutely for three cities, and for three more in case of enlargement of 
territory. The territory on the east of Jordan was not intended, so to speak, to be con- 
quered or divided among the tribes, and Moses consented reluctantly to its occupation by 
the two and a half tribes (see Num. xxxii.). Before this territory was conquered, three 
cities were likely to be enough. Afterward it was seen that they would be too distant and 
Moses (Deut. iv. 41-43) appointed the three cities on the east of the Jordan. Numbers 
XXXV., in appointing six cities, locates three on the east of Jordan, thus clearly including 
those of Deut. iv. The passage in Numbers was certainly after the conquest on the east, 
and so was Deut. iv. If we suppose Deut. xix. to have been before, it will be necessary 
to suppose that the two discourses were delivered in the reverse order from that in which 
they are recorded. I know of no objection to this, and there is an obvious reason why 
the longer exhortation founded on the law (which may have actually been divided into 
several discourses) should follow the shorter one on the history. I do not recall anything 
in this longer discourse inconsistent with this supposition. Deut. iv. 44-49, which is often 
considered as belonging with it, may quite as well be connected with the previous 
discourse." 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteroitomy. 189 

that we find anything like detail. Here directions are 
given concerning what is to be done to test the matter 
whether a witness be true or false ; and in case he is 
proved false, what penalty is to be visited upon him. 
The other two codes seem, certainly, to be before the 
legislator of Deuteronomy, and his direct object to 
supplement them. Comparing together the codes of 
Leviticus and Deuteronomy, if one's judgment is to 
be based solely on the laws in form and substance as 
they now appear, there could be no reason for assign- 
ing a later date to that of Leviticus. 

Rights of Inheritance. — The unwritten law of inheri- 
tance in Israel was that the eldest legitimate son 
should be his father's heir, receiving a double portion 
of all his possessions, the father's special blessing, and 
all other rights and privileges appertaining to the 
proper head of the family. This law is recognized by 
incidental allusions in the history and the codes, but is 
nowhere made the subject of an enactment, except in 
the way of restriction or supplement. 

Deuteronomy, for example, provides against the pos- 
sible partiality of a father for the first-born son of a 
favorite wife (xxi. 15-17), prohibiting his making him 
his heir in preference to the real first-born ; while 
Numbers (xxvii. i ff. ; xxxvi. ; cf. Josh. xvii. 3 f.) pro- 
vides for the case where there are no children save 
daughters, constituting them equal heirs of their 
father's estate, on the understanding that they marry 
within their own tribe. In the same connection, it is 
shown what is to be done if there are no children at all. 
The second case is an exceedingly interesting one, 
from the fact that it is special legislation, and arose, in 
its original form, from an actual appeal to Moses on 
the part of the daughters of a man who had died 



1 90 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

leaving no son. Moreover, it was subsequently 
amended because of a similar direct appeal to the 
lawgiver in view of certain difficulties expected to 
arise under it if it were left as first drafted. It is 
quite probable that the legislation in Deuteronomy was 
the result of a similar, though unrecorded, emergency. 

Such instances, in fact, serve to account, in some 
measure, for the journal-like character of a large por- 
tion of the laws of the Pentateuch. So-called discre- 
pancies are often nothing more or less than amend- 
ments called forth by altered circumstances, or revision 
suggested by further thought. In the case before us 
there is certainly no just occasion for predicating a 
later date for the law in its Levitical form. We see, 
indeed, the very circumstance of the history that 
called it forth passing before our eyes. Incidentally, 
attention may be called to the fact that the 
Deuteronomic code at this point makes use of the 
otherwise unused expression of Jacob in his address 
to Reuben, found in a document usually ascribed to 
the second Elohist (cf. with Deut. xxi. 17, Gen. xlix. 3, 
" beginning of my strength " ). 

TJie Property of a Brother Israelite. — In Deut. xxii. 
1-4 we have the command to restore the straying 
animal of a brother, or anything else he may have lost. 
Added to this is another of similar import, to the effect 
that help is to be given in case the animal of a brother 
fall under its burden. It is altogether but a somewhat 
changed reproduction of a passage in Exodus (xxiii. 
4, 5), which, however, contains the thought that this 
brother whose animal is astray or in trouble is one with 
whom the person addressed is not on friendly terms. 
Still, the epithet ''brother" used in Deuteronomy 
may be understood as comprehending the special case 



Laius Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 191 

mentioned in Exodus, together with all others of a 
similar character ; while this form of the code alone 
extends the rule to anything which might be lost 
(using a word only used elsewhere in Ex. xxii. 18 and 
in the code of the middle books : Lev. v. 22, 23). 
Considering, moreover, the secondary character of the 
legislation in Deuteronomy, it is remarkable to what 
extent its language differs from that of Exodus while 
expressing the same general thought. It is far enough 
from being a slavish imitation. 

Kindness to Animals. — In harmony with the fourth 
commandment, which enjoins rest for animals as well 
as man, we find in Deuteronomy (xxii. 6, 7) the com- 
mand not to destroy a bird and its young or eggs at the 
same time. Doubtless the purpose of the law was 
partly economic ; but the special motive urged, " that it 
may be well with thee," shows that higher considera- 
tions also ruled (cf. Ex. xxiii. 19; xxxiv. 26; Deut. xiv. 
21 ; XXV. 4). It seems to be but another specification, 
or illustration, under the law ^ven in Leviticus (xxii. 
28) which prohibits the killing of an animal and its 
young, "whether it be a cow or ewe," both in one day. 
There is no evidence whatever that the Deuteronomic 
law antedates the Levitical. The one looks simply 
toward the open fields and ordinary life ; the other 
toward the sanctuary and its sacrifices. 

Mixing Diverse Things. — The law in Deuteronomy 
against sowing a field with diverse seed, ploughing with 
an ox and an ass yoked together, wearing garments of 
mingled woolen and linen, and forbidding one sex to 
wear the clothing of the other (xxii. 5, 9-1 1), is, as it 
would appear, but an enlargement of that of Leviticus 
(xix. 19), two of the particulars being precisely the 
same^ and the unlike one in the latter code — that 



192 The Pe7itaieucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

cattle of diverse kinds shall not be allowed to gender 
together — not being of such a nature as to suggest 
priestly improvements of a later date. A peculiar dual 
form is found only in these two places. The same is 
true of another word, which is explained in the more 
popular code as meaning a material made up of woolen 
and linen. Deuteronomy speaks of ''vineyard," in 
place of ''field" found in Leviticus; but it is an 
unimportant variation.^ The motive urged in Deuter- 
onomy for not sowing with diverse seeds is worthy of 
notice, " lest it be made holy," that is, be confiscated 
to feed the priests and Levites of the sanctuary (cf. 
Lev. vi. 1 1). 

Fringes on the Garment. — In the Book of Numbers 
(xv. 37-41) Moses is represented as enjoining upon the 
Israelites, in the name of the Lord, that they should 
wear fringes on the borders of their garments, and that 
these fringes be ornamented with a ribbon of blue, the 
whole to be a memorial of what God had done for them 
and of their duty to him. In Deuteronomy (xxii. 12) 
the word "borders" is changed to "four borders," for 
"garments" we have "upper garment" (cf. Ex. xxii. 
26), and the fringes themselves, instead of cicith 
(found only here and in Ezek. viii. 3), are called g^dilivi 
(cf. I Kings vii. 17). All the changes seem to be in 
the interest of clearness and definiteness. The employ- 
ment of the former word in Ezekiel has no bearing on 
its use here, as it is there used for quite a different 
thing, the forelock. The Deuteronomic name, which 

1 It might better be said, perhaps, that as a more specific statement, it is more naturally 
found in a code of the purport of that of Deuteronomy. So Kamphausen in Riehm's 
Ha7id%vdrterbuch s.v. " Verschiedenartiges": " Die Erwahnnng des wol hauptsachlich 
in Betracht kommcnden Weinbergs erscheint als eine der Verdeutlichung dienende nahere 
Beslimmung des alten Gesetz. Es war namlich wol haiifiger der Fall, dass man Zwi- 
schen die Reihen der Weinstocke irgend eine Art von Getreide oder Gemiise saete, als dass 
man die untereinander gemcngtcn Korner z. B, von Gerstc und Weizen auf dasselbo 
Feld streute." 



Lazvs Repeated and Modified in Dciitero7ioiny. 193 

is derived from the process of manufacturing, is surely 
an improvement, for such a code, over the more tech- 
nical designation of Numbers, being a common word, 
and having the same meaning in Hebrew, Aramaic, 
Syriac, and Arabic. 

Sins against Chastity. — The only law against un- 
chastity in the Book of the Covenant is contained in 
the two injunctions (Ex. xxii. 16, 18), the one relating 
to the seduction of a bondmaid who is a virgin, the 
other to lying carnally with a beast as with mankind. 
Leviticus devotes to the subject a series of enactments, 
extending, altogether, over more than thirty verses 
(xviii. 6-30; XX. 10-26). The legislation of Deuter- 
onomy is largely special (xxii. 13-29; xxiii. i), having 
nothing in common with Leviticus except a command 
concerning adultery in its narrower sense (vs. 22 ; cf. 
Lev. xviii. 20; xx. 10), which it defines and punishes 
in the same way ; and the one concerning the seduction 
of a virgin (vs. 28, 29; cf. Lev. xix. 20-22), which, 
however, it considerably enlarges, and makes cover 
three distinct cases, all of them different from the one 
adduced in Leviticus. 

Of the two codes, taken simply by themselves, the 
priority of date would naturally fall to the form in 
Leviticus, that of Deuteronomy being of too limited 
a character to stand by itself, and its enactments, as we 
have intimated, of the nature of amendments. Atten- 
tion, moreover, may well be called to the fact that in 
the passage in Deuteronomy (xxiii. i) the law of 
incest as found in Leviticus (xvii. 7 ff.) seems to be 
recalled and renewed by a repetition of the first enact- 
ment of it. The lawgiver had together with the one 
chief instance of incest the others, which were almost 
equally criminal, in mind, as the anathemas (Deut. 



194 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Stnicture. 

xxvii. 20, 22, 23) show. It is but another way of 
citing the Levitical code. 

Cleanliness in Camp. — True to its historical back- 
ground, Deuteronomy has a number of laws relating to 
methods of conducting warfare upon the inhabitants of 
Canaan and the adjacent countries. As was to be 
expected, they are all, to a large extent, peculiar to it ; 
and the present one has been selected for special 
remark only because, in its principal features, certain 
laws of the books immediately preceding are so clearly 
reflected in it (with Deut. xxiii. 10-15 cf. respectively 
Lev. XV. 1-33; xviii. 19; xx. 18; Num, v. 1-4; xxxi. 
19-24). The particular uncleanness specified in vs. 10, 
1 1 of Deuteronomy is provided for in the same way in 
the other code (Lev. xv. 16, 17 ; cf. Num. v. 2), and the 
same degree of ceremonial impurity is imputed to it. 
That of vs. 12, 13, while special in its character, is 
wholly of one spirit with that of the Book of Numbers. 
So, too, the motive assigned for what is required in the 
people's code is fully up to the standard of that of the 
priests' : " Sanctify yourselves, therefore, and be ye 
holy; for I the Lord am holy" (Deut. xxiii. 15; cf. 
Lev. XX. 7). It is not an unimportant circumstance in 
view of current theories of development in this 
particular direction. 

Prostitntion. — The code of the middle books forbids 
male prostitution, otherwise known as sodomy, in the 
following terms : '' Thou shalt not lie with mankind as 
with womankind; it is an abomination" (Lev. xviii. 
22) ; and female prostitution with equal explicitness in 
the following chapter (xix. 29). Deuteronomy com- 
bines the two enactments in one (xxiii. 18, 19), using a 
technical term for prostitute first employed in Genesis 
(xxxviii. 21 f.), but frequently found in the later histori- 



Lazvs Repeated and Modified in Deuteroiiofny. 1 95 

cal and other books (i Kings xiv. 24; xv. 12 ; xxii. 47 ; 
2 Kings xxiii. 7; Job xxxvi. 14; Hos. iv. 14). It also 
adds to it an injunction, perhaps suggested by this very 
term as used by Phoenician and Canaanitish neighbors, 
to the effect that money obtained by such means " for 
any vow" is in no case to be brought into the house 
of the Lord. 

There is every indication that Deuteronomy repre- 
sents the latest form of the law. The expression 
"house of the Lord," otherwise strange to the book, 
occurs in Exodus (xxiii. 19), and is no proof that the 
temple was already built. The epithet "dog" applied 
to the male prostitute is as remarkable for its literary 
precision as for its exalted moral tone. 

Usury. — Exacting interest for what was loaned to 
Israelitish brethren is forbidden in each of the three 
forms of the legislation of the Pentateuch (Ex. xxii. 24 ; 
Lev. XXV. 35-37; Deut. xxiii. 20, 21) ; but these forms 
are by no means simple repetitions of one another. 
Each furnishes^something peculiar to itself. 

EXODUS. LEVITICUS. DEUTERONOMY. 

" If thou lend money to one "And if thy brother "Thou shalt not exact in- 

of my people among you, thou have grown poor ... or the terest of thy brother, interest 

shalt not be to him as one ex- stranger and sojourner for money, interest for food, 

acting interest; thou shalt not with thee, thou shalt re- interest for anything for 

charge him with interest." lieve him. Thou shalt not which one might exact in- 

take interest from him or terest. O? the foreigner thou 

increase. Thy money thou mayest exact it, but of thy 

shalt not give him for in- brother thou shalt not exact it, 

terest, nor thy food for in order that the Lord thy God 

increase. I am the Lord may bless thee." 

your God." 

In Exodus the poor Israelite is spoken of as one of 
God's people, and this thought supplies the place of the 
motives urged in the other laws. In Leviticus, not 
only is interest for money loaned prohibited, but for 
food. In Deuteronomy this is extended to anything 



196 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 

loaned. Leviticus enjoins that its provisions shall be 
applied to strangers (proselytes) and sojourners who 
are casually dwelling among the Israelites. Deuter- 
onomy adds, in harmony with its special outlook, that 
from foreigners interest for anything loaned may be 
legally received ; that is, from Phoenician, Canaanitish, 
and other professional traders with whom they may 
have dealings. 

It is plain that there is no call here for any adjust- 
ment ; the sacred laws are completely self-adjusting. 
They nicely fit and complement one another, and the 
three taken together form one harmonious whole. The 
question of conflict or of development in the line of 
Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, with a space of cen- 
turies between the separate codes, cannot for a moment 
be entertained. 

Vows. — The legislation of the Pentateuch neither 
imposed vows nor treated them as particularly merito- 
rious. They might be made or ignored without sin 
(Deut. xxiii. 22). This attitude was to have been 
expected ; since it is what God requires, and not what 
one voluntarily takes upon himself, that these laws 
make it their object to prescribe and enact. Still the 
subject could not be wholly overlooked ; for vows had 
in all times and countries a great deal to do with the 
religious life as popularly understood and practised. 

Hence the Mosaic laws undertake to regulate the 
matter in harmony with their own fundamental princi- 
ples. If, for example, one had actually made a vow, it 
must be fulfilled at the exact time and in the manner 
originally assumed (Num. xxx. 3 ; Deut. xxiii. 22, 23 ; 
Judges xi. 30 ff). Everything of which a person had 
the proper disposal, that is, which did not already come 
under the head of appointed offerings, it was presup- 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 197 

posed in the law might be voluntarily devoted to God, 
and it does not accordingly refer to the matter except, 
as we have already seen, by forbidding that the gains 
of prostitution shall be brought into the house of the 
Lord (Deut. xxiii. 18). Such an exception gives just 
the local coloring to this phase of the legislation which 
its supposed circumstances admit and serves also to 
display its true relation to the others in this matter. 
It is the middle books that have the most to say con- 
cerning vows (Lev. viL, xxii., xxiii., xxvii. ; Num. vi., 
XV., xxix., and especially xxx.). What is said in the 
people's code (Deut. xii. 6, 11, 17, 26; xxiii. 22 f.) is to 
be looked upon less in the light of any attempt to lay 
down rules, with the exception just noticed, and more 
as designed to impress an important principle under- 
lying all vows, that what had been once vowed could 
never be recalled (cf. its '' when thou vowest a vow," 
and ''what thy mouth hath spoken " with Num. xxx. 3, 

6, 7,/3)- 

It is true thattn the degeneracy of the later Judaism 
an ever greater stress came to be laid on self-imposed 
duties and restraints (Mai. i. 14; Matt. xv. 5 ; Mark vii. 
9), and it might therefore be claimed that the minute 
injunctions of the middle books reflect the spirit of a 
post-exilian Israel. But when it is considered that 
nothing at all is said of vows in the laws of Exodus, 
and that what is said in Deuteronomy is of a hortatory, 
or a purely emendatory, character, the legislation of the 
middle books seems to be positively demanded to meet 
the requirements of so fixed and widespread a custom 
of the earliest periods and one so ethical in its bearings. 

Pledges. — Deuteronomy treats the matter of pledges 
given for loans, relatively, at considerable length 
(xxiv. 6, 10-13, 17, 18), and altogether from its uni- 



198 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure, 

formly merciful and humane point of view. In form, 
what it has to say is evidently based on Exodus (xxii. 
25, 26), whose provisions, or more properly illustrations, 
it simply enlarges. Neither form of the law has any- 
thing to say about the pledging of land, which first 
came into use after the time of Nehemiah (Neh. v. 3) ; 
and the same is true of the code of the middle books, 
which is silent on the entire subject. 

Man-stealing. — The law concerning man-stealing is 
also limited to the same two codes. In the first form 
of the law (Ex. xxi. 16) the matter is not confined to the 
stealing of Hebrews alone ; and if the one stolen were 
either found in the thief's hands, that is, as a slave, or 
had been sold by him, the thief was to be put to death. 
In the second form (Deut. xxiv. 7), the matter is con- 
fined to the stealing of Hebrews, and the thief is to be 
put to death if he be foitnd stealing or selling one of his 
brethren. The law in Deuteronomy is either a milder 
form of the other, or to be understood as putting a 
proper interpretation upon the other. 

Leprosy. — Delitzsch ^ has laid down the safe princi- 
ple that where there are " in Deuteronomy references to 
the laws which are fully codified by the Elohist, these 
laws, as well as those of the Book of the Covenant, are 
to be looked upon as antedating Deuteronomy." '' That 
this," he goes on to say, *' is true of the law of Leviti- 
cus relating to the leprosy we think we have shown in 
our first article.^ The impressive exhortation, Deut. 
xxiv. 8, to hold one's self obedient, in case of the lep- 
rosy, to the directions of the Levitical priests, which 
themselves, in turn, rest on divine instructions ('as I 
have commanded them ' ; cf. with this the expression 
referring to the law of the Sabbath, vs. 12), presupposes 

1 Zeitschrift filr Kirchlichc Wissenschaft, etc. 1880, p. 446. - Ibid. pp. 3-10. 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 1 99 

the existence of such special norms, products of divine 
revelation, as stand recorded in Lex. xiii., xiv." It is 
not easy to see how this conclusion of Delitzsch can be 
avoided. The Book of the Covenant does not take up 
the subject. Deuteronomy refers explicitly to instruc- 
tions somewhere given to the priests concerning it. 
They are found in full in Leviticus, and found nowhere 
else. 

The allusion to Miriam in Deut. xxiv. 9 is incidental, 
and is made, apparently, for the sake of warning, lest 
one expose himself by disobedience to the danger of 
the leprosy. It should not be used so to limit the pre- 
ceding verse as to make it teach that if the people are 
not submissive to the priests they will be liable to 
attacks from this dreadful disease. It was not against 
the priests, but against Moses, that Miriam and Aaron, 
himself the head of the priesthood, had shown a rebel- 
lious spirit. The rendering of vs. 8, which Schultz and 
Keil strangely favor : *' Take heed against the plague 
of the leprosy by observing and doing according to all 
the Levitical priests," etc., is not only grammatically 
less to be recommended, but introduces by the but-end 
an incongruous thought into the context. It is possible, 
indeed, that the reference is to Miriam's exclusion from 
camp, and solely to that, showing that the strictest 
rules were enforced even in her case, and hence should 
be in that of all others. 

Gleaning. — Of the law in Leviticus in behalf of the 
poor (xix. 10), that the corners of the fields and the 
gleanings as well of vineyards as grainfields are to be 
left for them, Dillmann ^ remarks that its age is wit- 
nessed to not only by its form, but by its repetition 
in xxiii. 22, and in Deut. xxiv. 19-22. In the latter 

1 Com., in loco. 



200 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure, 



passages the gleanings of olive-trees and sheaves for- 
gotten in the harvesting are also included among the 
perquisites of ''strangers, the fatherless, and widow." 
It was a goodly land upon which the people looked 
over from the steppes of Moab. What wonder that 
the heart grew generous in view of it ? 

Just Weights and Measures. — As it has just oc- 
curred, and not infrequently occurred, so here, we find 
Deuteronomy doing little more than simply repeating 
a regulation of Leviticus (xix. 35, 36 ; cf. Deut. xxv. 
13-16) in a slightly altered form. The language of the 
latter betrays no sign of a later age, and still less does 
the motive which is urged as an incentive : the fact that 
God had brought them from the land of Egypt. The 
style of Deuteronomy is more popular, it has fewer 
specifications than Leviticus, but it is one with it in 
spirit and conveys essentially the same message. The 
motive it offers, as over against that of the parallel 
code, is strikingly appropriate to the alleged circum- 
stances of its origin : '' In order that thy days may be 
prolonged in the land which the Lord thy God 
giveth thee" (cf. iv. 26, 40; v. 16, 30; vi. 2; xi. 9; 
xvii. 20; xxii. 7; xxv. 19; xxviii. 8; xxx. 16; xxxi. 13). 

It is worthy of notice that our code ends, as it began, 
with a reference to the speedy entrance on the pos- 
session of the promised land. The present series of 
laws forms no exception to the rest of the code, or any 
of the codes, in the fact of laying emphasis on this 
impending event. The chief difference between Deu- 
teronomy and the middle books in this respect is that 
it seems to feel considerably more than they the 
nearness of Palestine. The legislation of PC, like its 
history, is more appropriate to a migratory people, 
always centring, as it does, about the tabernacle. The 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 201 

legislative and narrative portions of Deuteronomy, on 
the other hand, are more appropriate to a people about 
to settle as a morally and politically united nation in 
a long-hoped-for national domain. 

Let us, in conclusion, briefly recall some of the prin- 
cipal features of the series of laws just considered. 
If we mistake not, they have an important bearing 
on important problems of the criticism. Among the 
enactments are some, as for example that enjoining the 
wiping out of unconquerably hostile Canaanitish cities 
(xiii. 13-19; XX. 15-18), which, on the supposition of 
ungenuineness, would not alone be senseless — they 
would be ridiculous. There are still others, like that 
which specifies a single characteristic sin in a certain 
category of unchastity (xxiii. i), that without the back- 
ground of some such legislation as that of the middle 
books would be as incomplete as the law against 
unclean food apart from specifications. 

There are others, and a not inconsiderable list of 
them, which plainly appear to be laws of the so-called 
"Priests' Code" modified, sometimes slightly changed 
in form, sometimes essentially supplemented. The 
changes are precisely of the nature to be expected, if 
the history actually took the course it is said to have 
taken (xiv. 21 ; xv. i-ii ; xvii. 6, 7; xix. 15, 16; xxiii. 
20, 21). And it is particularly significant that we have 
found instances, both where there was an indirect 
assumption of another and a fuller code existing else- 
where, and instances of the direct and, as it seems to 
us, indisputable citation of such a code (xx. 18 ; xxiv. 8) 
— citations made for the apparent purpose of calling it 
to mind and enforcing its injunctions. 

Then, too, here, as elsewhere, the peculiar form of the 
Deuteronomic code has attracted our attention. It is 



202 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structtcre. 

adapted to the supposed occasion of a popular assem- 
bly. It is simple in style. The technical language of 
the preceding books disappears. The laws meant only 
for the priests are left out entirely. A difficult or 
dubious term that we have in the parallel passage in 
Leviticus, for example, is here explained as meaning 
woolen mixed with linen (xxii. ii). Of Moloch, the 
Ammonite deity, mentioned again and again in Leviti- 
cus, we hear not a word here ; but more than once the 
warning is sounded against the abominable rite of pass- 
ing children through the fire (xii. 31 ; xviii. 10). The 
practice of deceiving in the matter of weights and 
measures is here alone forbidden in the picturesque 
form : " Thou shalt not have in thy wallet a stone and 
a stone, a great and a small one. Thou shalt not have 
in thy house an ephod and an ephod, a great and a 
small one" (xxv. 13-16). 

Nearly all the laws of Deuteronomy, moreover, are 
marked by a peculiarly hortatory, rather than a merely 
prohibitive, style. The '' thou shalt not " of Mount 
Sinai has largely taken on a pathetic " O, do not " 
of expostulation and affectionate appeal. What is 
enjoined is not alone put upon the conscience of the 
individual Israelite : he is expected to lay it to heart. 
Each of the codes treats of the respect that is due to 
the poor and the helpless ; but neither of the others to 
the extent that it is done in this. It is exactly in the 
spirit of Deuteronomy to enjoin that the back of the 
enfranchised slave be loaded down with gifts from 
granary and wine-press (xv. 14). It is just like it to 
call attention to the circumstance that the day-laborer 
''sets his heart" upon his earnings and to urge that 
he be paid the wage of the day on his day (xxiv. 15). 

There is evidently a purpose in all this. As it seems 



Laws Repeated and Modified in Deuteronomy. 203 

to us, it cannot lie far off from that other purpose which 
prompted Moses to rehearse to the people their own 
code in a language they could understand and to pro- 
vide for this whole impressive scene just preceding, as 
we are told, the exit of the great lawgiver from the 
stage of Jewish history. Alike the style of speech and 
the spirit of it harmonize perfectly with the circum- 
stances of the case as they are frankly recited in the 
eleven chapters that introduce the code of Deuter- 
onomy and the eight that follow it. With those other 
circumstances in the days of King Josiah (b.c. 621), 
alleged to be the real historic setting of these laws, 
clearly and emphatically they do not harmonize. 

For strictly speaking this is not legislation. It is 
next to impossible that it should be legislation in its 
earliest, rudimental form. It is rather the admonition 
that follows the precept, Moses performing the office of 
prophet, after fulfilling so well the office of leader and 
legislator. It is the same voice that we hear speaking, 
but one grown somewhat tremulous with age and full 
of the tenderness of a farewell utterance. 

Mark the motives to which appeal is made. These 
are the thousands of Israel, fresh from a pilgrimage of 
forty years in the rough wilderness skirting the south- 
ern borders of Canaan. But they are addressed as any 
audience of Bible-educated people in similar circum- 
stances might be addressed. The standard that is set 
for them — how far short does it come of that which is 
set for us by the teachers and preachers of to-day } If 
there be imperfectness of form, there is surely none in 
spirit. It is a spirit that we recognize as divine. 

As we have already said, with the whole Pentateuch 
before us, with the certain knowledge that all its sub- 
lime history was enacted just as it is recorded, and just 



204 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

as it is claimed to have been enacted by those in circum- 
stances to know most about it, we cannot cease to 
wonder at such a people ; that " at the moment which 
ended their tent-life in the wilderness, and which imme- 
diately preceded their entrance upon the land assigned 
them . . . they, in full ecclesia, might properly be 
taught, advised, upbraided, promised, threatened, in the 
manner of which the closing book of the Pentateuch is 
the record and summary." ^ But if you take away the 
Pentateuch as a record of facts ; if you take away the 
history whose source and inspiration is Mount Sinai, 
and that is broken in upon, as this purports to be, by 
divine interpositions ; if, above all, you take away the 
educating influence of the tabernacle and its worship, 
we have a riddle on our hands more perplexing by far 
than that offered by any irregularities of the codes. It 
was the apostle James who said : " Show me thy faith 
apart from works and I will show thee my faith by my 
works." Show me a Deuteronomic people without the 
patriarchal history, without Exodus and Leviticus, and 
I will show you one that these histories and laws were 
calculated to produce as nothing else could. 

To stigmatize such efforts as the foregoing, to adjust 
the laws of the Pentateuch to one another on the 
theory of a common origin, a theory which has the 
support of the books themselves and all that can 
properly be called biblical history, as ''traditional" 
and "harmonistic," does not establish a contrary con- 
clusion. If there were nothing else to stimulate and 
recommend such efforts the alternative offered by our 
critics would of itself be sufficient : a veritable TohH 
VdbhoJnl (Gen. i, 2) over which broods no Spirit of God 
to call order out of the confusion. 

^ Isaac Taylor, TJie Spirit of Hcbrciv Poetry, p. 169. 



Table of Laws Reviewed, 



205 



TABLE OF LAWS REVIEWED IN THE LAST 
THREE PAPERS. 



Subject. 


Dextteeonomy. 


Exodus. 


Leviticus and 

NUMBEES. 


1 Introductory, 


12:1 (see Hebrew text 
throughout). 






2 Destruction of idols, etc., 


12:2-4, 29, 30; 4: 15-19 


23:24, 33; 34! 12-17; 


N. 33: 5*1, ■52* 




7:5,25,26; 20:18 


Cf.23:1.3. 




3 Centralization of worship. 


12:5-28; of. 26: 2 If, 


20:24,25; 34:23-26 


L. 17 : 1 ff. et pas- 


4 Worship of Moloch, 


12:31; cf. 18:10 




sim. 
L.18:21; 20:2-5 


5 Seduction to idolatry. 


13:1-19; 16:21--i2 






6 Destruction of Canaanitish 


13:13-19; 20:15-18 


23:23,24,27-33; 34: 


N. 33: 50-56* 


cities, 




12-16 




7 Forbidden mourning customs. 


14:1,2 




L. 19: 27,28; 21:5 
L. 11:1-21,22-43 


8 Food as clean and unclean, 


14:3,20 


. 


9 Animals eaten to be properly 








slain, 


14:21 


22:30 


L.17:15 


10 Offerings, 


14:22-29; cf. 12:17-19 
15:19-23; 26:12-19 


22:29; 23:18, 19a; 


N. 18 : 21-32 et 




34:19,20,25,26 a. 


passim. 
L. 25: 1-7 


11 Sabbatic Year, 


15 : 1-11 


23:9-11 


12 Release of Hebrew servants. 


15 : 12-18 


21: 2-6 


L. 25 : 39-46 


13 Sacrifices to be faultless. 


15:19-23; 17:1 




L. 22: 19-27 


14 The feasts, 


16: 1-17 


23:14-17; 34*21-23 


L. 23:4 ff.; N.28: 


15 Judges and Officers, 


16:18-20; 19:8-13 




11 ff. 


16 Oppression of the poor. 


16:19-20; 24:14, 15 


22 : 21-24 


L. 19: 33, 34 


17 Punishment of Hebrew Idol- 








aters, 


17:2-5; cf 4:19 


22:19 


. . . 


18 Witnesses needful. 


17:6, 7; cf. 19:15, 16 




N.35:30 


19 The king. 


17:14-20 


. 




20 Priests and Levites, 


18:1-8 


. . . 


L. 7: 8-10'; 1*0:14,15 
N. 18: 8-20 








21 Magical arts, etc.. 


18:9-14 


22:17 


L. 19: 26, 31; 20:6, 


22 The prophet, 

23 Cities of refuge. 


18:15-22 




27; N".23:23 


19:1-13; cf. 4:41-43; 

23:16 
19:14 


21:13 


N.35.'l-*t 


24 Removing Landmark, 






25 False witness. 


19:15-21 


23:1-3 ■ 


L.19:i2,*15,'l6 


26 Preparation for battle. 


20:1-9; 24:5 






27 Hostile cities, 


20:10-14,19,20 


• • • 


! 


28 Purification for murder. 


21 : 1-9 




29 Female captives. 


21 : 10-14 






30 Right of inheritance. 


21 : 15-17 


. 


N. 27 : i ff. ; 'ch. 36 


31 Disobedient son. 


21:18-21 


! '. 




32 Hanging, 


21 : 22-23 






33 Property of a brother Israelite, 


22:1-4 


23:4,5* 




34 Kindness to animals, 


22: 6,7; cf. 14:21; 25: 


4 23:196; 34:26 6. 


L. 22:28 * 


35 Regard for human life. 


22:8 






36 Mixing of diverse things. 


22:5,9-U 


... 


L.19:i9" 


37 Fringes, 


22:12 




N. 15 : 37-41 


38 Charge of unchastity. 


22:13-21 






39 Sin against chastity, 


22:22-29; 23:1 


22:16,18 


L. 18:'6l30*; 20; 


40 Persons shut out of the con- 






10-26. 


gregation, 
41 Cleanliness of the camp. 


23:2-9 


. . . 




23:10-15 


... 


L. 15:*l-33;" N.5: 


42 Fugitive slave. 


23:16,17 


. . . 


1-^ et passim. 


43 Prostitution, 


23:18,19 


. 


L.18:22; 19:29 


44 Usury, 


23:20,21 


22:24 


L. 25; 35-37 


45 Vows, 


23:22-24; cf.l2:6, 11, 




L.chs.7,22,23,27; 




17, 26 




N. chs. 6, 15, 29, 


46 Divorce, 


24:1-4 




30 


47 Pledges, 


24:6,10-13,17,18 


22:25,2*6 




48 Man-stealing, 


24:7 


21:16 


. . . 


49 Leprosy, 

50 Gleaning, 


24:8,9 




L. chs. 13, 14 


24:19-22 


... 


L.lt»:9,10; 23:22 


51 Forty stripes. 


25:1-3 


... 




52 Levirate marriage. 


25 : 5-10 


. • • 


... 


53 Punishment of iramodestv, 


25:11,12 


^ 




54 Just weights and measures. 


2.5 : 13-16 


• • • 

* 


L.19:35,*36' 


55 Amalek, 


25:17-19 






56 Offering of first-fruits, etc. 


26: 1-19 


\ \ \ 


i . . 



VI. 

LAWS PECULIAR TO THE " PRIESTS' CODE." 



On the theory that Moses led the Israelites out of 
Egypt, something within the Mosaic period answering 
to the priestly legislation of Leviticus and Numbers is 
not only a natural, but almost a necessary, presumption. 
Of the four great castes of Egypt, that of the priests 
was second in rank, holding in fact the same relation to 
the king that in Israel the high-priest held to Moses 
and his successors. The description Herodotus gives 
of the Egyptian priests, their dress, their means of 
support, the advantages they enjoyed and the influence 
they exerted, reminds us, at every step, of the priestly 
class in Israel.^ 

When Pharaoh would honor Joseph, he gives him his 

1 " They are religious to excess, far beyond any other race of men, and use the follow- 
ing ceremonies : They drink out of brazen cups, which they scour every day : there is 
no exception to this practice. They wear linen garments, which they are especially 
careful to have always fresh washed. They practise circumcision for the sake of cleanli- 
ness, considering it better to be cleanly than comely. The priests shave their whole body 
every other day, that no lice or other impure thing may adhere to them when they are 
engaged in the service of the gods. Their dress is entirely of linen, and their shoes of the 
papyrus plant: it is not lawful for them to wear either dress or shoes of any other material. 
They bathe twice every day in cold water, and twice each night, besides which they 
observe, so to speak, thousands of ceremonies. They enjoy, however, not a few advan- 
tages. They consume none of tlieir own property and are at no expense for anything; 
but every day bread is baked for them of the sacred corn, and a plentiful supply of beef 
and of goose's flesh is assigned to each, and also a portion of wine made from the grape. 
Fish they are not allowed to eat; and beans — which none of the Egyptians ever sow, 
Great, if they come up of their own accord, either raw or boiled — the priests will not 
even endure to look on, since they consider it an unclean kind of pulse. Instead of a 
single priest, each god has the attendance of a college, at the head of which is a chief 
priest; when one of these dies, his son is appointed in his stead." — See Rawlinson's 
Herodotus, ii. p. 65 f. 



Laws Pecidiar to the ^^ Priests CodeT 207 

signet-ring and marries him to a daughter of the priest 
of On. Moses, the adopted son of an Egyptian prin- 
cess, brought up in all "the wisdom of Egypt," was also 
the son-in-law of a priest of Midian.^ For forty years 
he pastured his sheep on that very peninsula of Sinai 
where afterward, for forty years, he led the flock of 
God. The name he gives his first-born^ sufficiently 
proves his loyalty, during this period of training, to his 
own nation and its traditions. And it is not a position 
that surprises us by its boldness, when Bertheau claims 
that Moses in Midian came in contact with a form 
of the faith of his Shemitic ancestors purer than that 
prevailing among the Hebrew abjects of Egypt.^ 

However this may be, it is certain that the law and 
ritual of the Israelites, while not a little colored by 
those of Egypt, no less find justification in the con- 
temporaneous monuments of allied Shemitic races, like 
the Phoenician and the Assyrian. " Among both we 
find traces of sacrifices and institutions which offer 
many parallels to the religious ordinances of Moses. 
Besides the Sabbath . . . the Babylonians and Assyr- 
ians had various festivals and fasts, on which certain 
rites had to be performed and certain sacrifices offered ; 
they knew of 'peace-offerings' and of 'heave-offerings,' 
of the dedication of the first-born and of sacrifices for 
sin. The gods were carried in procession in 'ships,' 
which, as we learn from the sculptures, resembled in 
form the Hebrew ark and were borne on men's 
shoulders by means of staves. In the front of the 
image of the gods stood a table, on which shew-bread 
was laid ; and a distinction was made between the meat- 
ier. Geike, Hours with the Bible, ii. 86-114; Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient 
Mo7tuments, p. 71 f. 

2 Gershom = a stranger there. 

2 Geschichte, p. 242. Cf., however, KurtZj Hist, of the Old Covetiant, ii. p. 195. 



2o8 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

offering and the animal sacrifice. Certain unclean 
kinds of food were forbidden, including the flesh of 
swine and creeping things ; and in the outer court were 
large lavers called * seas/ like the sea of Solomon's 
temple, in which the worshipers were requested to 
cleanse themselves. Many of these regulations and 
rites came down from the Accadians (Gen. x. lo), who 
founded the great cities of ancient Chaldaea and were 
the inventors of the hieroglyphics afterward developed 
and the cuneiform character of the Assyrian." ^ 

To assume, accordingly, that the priestly legislation 
and ritual of Israel, regarded as Mosaic, are, on their 
face, anachronistic, is to assume what the monuments 
disprove. To assume that prophets in Israel must 
have preceded priests, the so-called Jehovistic writings 
the Elohistic, the protevangelium of the second chap- 
ter of Genesis the sacrifices of the first, is to assume 
what the literature of contemporaneous peoples would 
lead us to regard as most improbable.^ It was to the 
priests of Egypt that was given the care and the inter- 
pretation of the sacred books. Not only was the 
prophet not superior to the priest, but prophecy was 
regarded as a subordinate function of the priesthood 
itself. The very name employed to designate the 
Egyptian written character (hieratic), on which the 
alphabetic systems of most other peoples have been 
based, like its companion word "hieroglyphic," shows 
how predominant was the position of the priesthood 
among this most ancient of civilized peoples. 

1 See Sayce, ibid. p. 77 f. 

2 See Rawlinson's Herod, il. p. 67, note; and the opening sentence of the " Decree " of 
the Rosetta Stone in Records of the Past, iv. p. 71. In the " Decree of Canopus," a 
document nearly a century older than the Rosetta Stone there is still further confirmation 
of the statement that the priestly office was sometimes understood to include the pro- 
phetical {Records of the Past, m\\.i^. 85): "And they should be called priests of the 
benevolent gods in their name, that they should occupy a higher rank through the name 
of their office; and of their place as prophet thereof," etc. 



Laws Peculiar to the ^'Priests' CodeT 209 

We are permitted then to begin the investigation of 
the so-called '' Priests' Code " of the Pentateuch with a 
strong presumption in favor of its genuineness. Such 
a series of laws might have been given by a Moses of 
the exodus, might even have been expected from him, 
were he to figure at all in the character of a lawgiver. 
And the question that, in the present paper, we have 
to answer is, Do these laws in their present form, when 
examined in detail, necessitate the theory of a later 
date ? Is there anything about them that should lead 
to the certain conclusion or render probable, notwith- 
standing the plausibility and practicability of the 
traditional view as sustained by the monuments, the 
position that they are neither the production of Moses 
nor come from his age ? Every law peculiar to the 
" Priests' Code " and not hitherto examined by us, 
including Lev. xvii.-xxvi., will be passed under review. 

Cojicerning Blasphemy (Lev. xxiv. 15, 16; Num. 
XV. 30, 31). — The lav/ against blasphemy is but the 
negative side of the demand that due honor shall be 
paid to Jehovah, the unseen King. It is no more out 
of place, therefore, in the Mosaic period, in itself con- 
sidered, than the first and second precepts of the 
decalogue. It is, in fact, but another form of the 
commandment : "■ Thou shalt not take the name of 
the Lord thy God in vain." It finds an echo in still 
another injunction of the Sinaitic code (Ex. xxii. 27). 

Moreover, it purports to be the outcome of an actual 
event of the Mosaic history (Lev. xxiv. 10-14). We 
are informed in the context that the son of an Israel- 
itish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, had been 
detected "execrating the name." Inquiry is made 
of the Lord by Moses to learn what shall be done 
with him. It is enjoined that he shall be stoned by 



210 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

the whole congregation "■ without the camp." Then 
follows the law which is to govern in similar cases. 
Dillmann ^ thinks he sees evidence that it is somewhat 
older than the history here made its setting. Be that 
as it may, there is not a scintilla of proof that either 
is post-Mosaic. The contrary is sustained by both 
circumstantial and direct evidence. The whole con- 
ception of the crime of blasphemy was revolutionized 
among the post-exilian Jews (2 Mace. x. 4, 36). 
Malachi used terms for characterizing the offence 
that are unknown to Leviticus (i. 6, 12). Meanwhile 
it is the Levitical form of the law that is enforced 
in so flagrant and unjust a way by Jezebel's emissaries 
in the northern kingdom, before the close of the tenth 
century (i Kings xxi.). 

The Sacred Vestments (Ex. xxviii. 1-43). — Like 
the priestly class of contemporaneous peoples, the 
priesthood of Israel, also, was to be distinguished by 
a peculiar official dress. An entire chapter, it will be 
observed, is devoted to its details. With a strong 
Egyptian caste throughout, it shows, perhaps, an equal 
acquaintance with the customs of a Shemitic ancestry. 
Linen was the fabric uniformly employed for clothing 
by the priests of Egypt ; while, if we may trust the 
frescos of Egyptian dwellings, delight in colors was 
a marked Shemitic trait.^ The hand-loom and its 
appurtenances had long been a familiar piece of 
domestic furniture. Needlework with gold thread, 
as well as cord made from twisted gold wire, were 
common devices for ornamentation. Linen corselets, 
engraved stones, and even something answering in 
kind to the mysterious Urim and Thummim of the 
Jewish high-priest, might all have been suggested 

1 Com., i?i loco. ^ Cf. Rawlinson in Pulpit Covi. on Exodus, ii. p. 280. 



Laws Peadiar to the ^'Priests' Code.''* 2il 

by Egyptian precedents. The pomegranate tassel, 
on the other hand, was an Assyrian device, together 
with bells of the present modern shape. Hence 
it may be seen that the directions for clothing the 
Jewish priests are everywhere stamped with marks 
of the Mosaic age. What is characteristic in them 
characterizes as well oriental antiquities in general. 

But there are also considerations of a more positive 
nature to be presented. Delitzsch, for example, has 
called attention to the several colors employed in 
the Jewish high-priest's ephod.^ They are the same 
that are found in the coverings of the sanctuary. In 
the case of two of these, the technical terms used 
to designate them occur only in the Elohistic por- 
tions of the Pentateuch. If these sections were 
a product of the exile, we might expect to meet 
with the given terms in the literature of that period. 
But this is conspicuously not the case. 

The word for red purple, for instance, in our code and 
throughout the Elohistic Torah is argaman?' At the 
time of the exile, this had become corrupted into the 
half-Aramaic, half-Persian argewan. The color known 
in the earlier period as tola'ath shani, scarlet or crimson^ 
the Chronicler, representing the latest stage of the lan- 
guage and that which, on the hypothesis should be, but 
is not, used in the regulations before us, has changed to 
karmil^ Such indications as these no scholar will feel 
inclined to overlook. They are of the nature of those 
inimitable vegetable and animal formations which have 
left here and there an impression on the broken surface 
of our globe and have become the accepted data for 
determining its geological periods. 

1 Preface to Curtiss's Levitical Priests, p. xi. 
2 1 employ here Delitzsch's transliteration. 
3 Cf. 2 Chron. ii. 6. 



212 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure, 

So, too, the history of the Urim and Thummim 
furnishes something- more than a hint in the same 
direction. Just what this device was and how it was 
employed, we need not now stop to inquire. Perhaps it 
will never be fully known. The very mystery that, to 
us, overhangs the subject is significant. There appears 
to be none in the minds of biblical writers. Previous 
acquaintance is assumed in the manner of its intro- 
duction. There is no effort at explanation. Let it be 
supposed now, for the moment, that our code arose in 
Ezra's day and that what we glean from the historical 
books concerning this oracle of light and right furnishes 
the needed information concerning it. But this is pre- 
cisely what we are not permitted to suppose. It would 
be placing the pyramid on its apex. 

So far from finding a development in the matter from 
the Mosaic period downward, we find the opposite. 
Abiathar of David's time is the last of whom it is said 
that he made use of the Urim and Thummim. We 
discover Eleazer, Aaron's successor, wearing it as a 
fitting part of his high-priestly furnishing (Num. xxvii. 
2i). We find it mentioned as one of the distinguishing 
honors of the tribe of Levi by Moses in his blessing 
(Deut. xxxiii. 8). But the history subsequent to Solo- 
mon's day is wholly silent respecting it. And, still 
more noticeably, that of the exile furnishes positive 
evidence that it had then ceased to exist (Ezra ii. 63 ; 
Neh. vii. 65). Questions of priestly genealogy are by 
common consent postponed until there shall arise a 
priest with Urim and Thummim. We know, further, 
that he was waited for in vain. The generation of the 
Maccabees (i Mace. iv. 46 ; xiv. 41), two centuries later, 
are prosecuting still the same hopeless quest. With the 
rise of prophecy this earlier and ruder style of divine 



Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests' CodeT 213 

communication had forever passed away. The later 
yearning for its restoration was no sign of development, 
but of decadence. The principle underlying our Lord's 
words, '' It is expedient for you that I go away," is 
applicable to all times. The prophet was greater than 
the seer. To bring back deliverances by Urim and 
Thummim after the former had done, for the time, his 
work was to face toward the wilderness instead of 
toward Him in whom all prophecy culminated and 
had its supreme embodiment. 

The Consea^atioii of Priests (Ex. xxix. 1-42 ; Lev. vi. 
12-16; viiL). — The ceremony of consecrating the sons 
of Aaron to the priesthood consisted mainly in these 
four things : ablution, investiture, anointing, and sacri- 
fice. The first, as a symbol of moral purity, is common 
to all religions, especially to the Egyptian, The appro- 
priateness of the dress of Israelitish priests to the 
circumstances of their supposed origin has already been 
considered. The rite of anointing as a sign of conse- 
cration is a peculiarity of the Jewish dispensation and 
of that which sprung from it. Its underlying idea is 
devotement. The person or thing so anointed was set 
apart for God, as purified and well-pleasing in his sight. 
This is the import of the declaration in Leviticus 
where we read (viii. 12) : ''And he poured some of 
the anointing oil on Aaron's head, and anointed him, 
to sanctify him." The use in Egypt and among other 
nations of antiquity of perfumed oils for medical pur- 
poses and as a luxury is too well known to need 
enlargement. So skilfully was it prepared that speci- 
mens from the times of the Pharaohs, still redolent 
of rare spices, have come down to our day.^ 

Why it was that the Jews alone, as far as we know, 

1 See 'R\&h.m!s Handworterbtich, s.v. " Salbe." 



214 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

anointed with oil as a rite of inauguration, having a 
special word to distinguish the sacred from the secular 
use, may be as difficult to explain as some other facts 
in the history of this singular people. But there is 
nothing in the circumstance that can suggest an 
innovation of a later day. On the contrary, the usages 
of a later day, as already shown,^ differ essentially 
from those of the supposed Mosaic period. There is no 
evidence that when Ezra and Nehemiah were on the 
stage the high-priest was anointed at all (cf. Zech. iii.). 
And there is just as little evidence that, after their 
original consecration in the sons of Aaron, ordinary 
priests were ever again anointed on entering upon their 
office (Ex. xxix. 29 f. \ cf. xxviii. 41 ; xxx. 30 ; xl. 15 ; 
Lev. vii. 36 ; x. 7 ; Num. iii. 3). 

The matter of the offerings made by priests on the 
occasion of their consecration (Ex. xxix. 38-42 ; vi 
12-16 ; viii.) presents no features requiring special com- 
ment. The dividing of a victim sacrificed was a wide- 
spread custom throughout the East ; as was also the 
ceremony of filling the hands of an official at the time 
of his installation with the insignia of his office. That 
in the midst of this solemn ritual we find evidence here 
and there that the physical necessities of God's servants 
are not left wholly unprovided for is no symptom that 
our document is of priestly origin. It serves rather to 
show that Moses who through a whole generation acted 
the part of purveyor and commissary-in-chief as well 
as military and religious leader was true to himself. 
Indeed, it is on the alleged lUterances of Moses that 
Paul bases the principle that those who "preach the 
Gospel are to live of the Gospel " (i Cor. ix. 4, 9 ; 
I Tim. V. 18 ; cf. Deut. xxv. 4). 

iSee above, p. 119. 



Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests Code!' 215 

The Anointing Oil (Ex. xxx. 22-33). — Besides the 
fact already mentioned, that the anointing of the high- 
priest at his installation cannot be historically verified 
as a custom of the later times,^ there are other circum- 
stances of interest connected with the anointing oil. 
Of the four varieties of spices entering into its compo- 
sition, only one, cinnamon, could have been rare in 
Moses' day. It is but three times spoken of in the 
Bible (Prov. vii. 17; Cant. iv. 14). Still, Herodotus 
cites it as an article of commerce from Arabia ^ and 
claims a Shemitic origin for its present universal name. 
The point of difficulty with the later Jews, it is likely, 
consisted not in the nature of the materials employed, 
but in the peculiar method of composition. It was not 
a bald mixture of spices with oil. It was the product 
of acquired skill, such as only a Bezaleel possessed 
(Ex. xxxvii. 29). 

Special Requirements of Priests (Lev. x. 8-1 1 , xxi. 
1-24). — Among the various requirements made of the 
priesthood by which its character for holiness was to be 
maintained and emphasized there seems to be but one 
which comes within the scope of the present inquiry. 
A priest was not permitted to marry a licentious, 
profane, or divorced woman. The high-priest's choice 
of a wife was further confined to a virgin of his own 
people. These are the sole limitations of the law 
touching this matter. The ordinary priest, accordingly, 
might, if he chose, marry a widow, or go outside the 
bounds of his own people and take as wife the daughter 
of a '' stranger " dwelling among the Israelites. 

This statute, now, could not have been made in the 
time of Ezra and Nehemiah, for it does not reflect its 
tendencies. We discover already in the Book of 

1 See Hamburger's Real-Encyc. s.v. " Salbol.'' 2 {j;^ j j j_ 



2 1 6 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Ezekiel a toning up of the legislation in this respect. 
The ordinary jDriest is there subjected to the rule for 
the high-priest, in that he is prohibited from marrying 
a widow, except the widow of a former priest. But 
among the exiles who have returned from Babylon we 
find ourselves in an atmosphere surcharged with this 
stricter spirit. Severest penalties are visited not alone 
on priests but on the laity for intermarriage with any 
heathen people. And it is noticeable that Ezra, who 
makes humble confession to God on account of such 
transgressions in Israel, most significantly has the Deu- 
teronomic, and not the Levitical, form of the legislation 
in view (Ezra ix. 12 f. ; x. 18 £f. ; cf. Deut. vii. 3 ; xxiii. 7). 
How is it possible, then, that such a law as this of the 
middle books could have originated at any period sub- 
sequent to the prophecy of Ezekiel .? How much less 
could the strenuousness of that prophecy in the matter 
before us have marked a transition in the direction of 
the relative laxity of the '' Priests' Code " ! 

The High-Priest to be of Eleazer s Line (Num. xxv. 
10-13). — The effort of the Wellhausen criticism to 
make out that the Aaronic priesthood, with the 
high-priest at its head, was a novelty of the exile is 
one of the least plausible of its many wild conjectures. 
The history furnishes not an iota of valid evidence 
for it to rest upon The story of Aaron and Miriam 
stands or falls with that of Moses himself. The sec- 
tion from Numbers now before us belongs to a nar- 
rative of events occurring near the close of the exodus 
period.^ It brings the history of the priesthood one 
step further downward Eleazer has succeeded Aaron ; 
and now it is promised that Phinehas, on account 
of his sublime act of moral courage and zeal for God, 
shall perpetuate the succession. 

iNum, i.-xiv. belongs to the earlier part, xv, ff. to the later. 



Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests' Code J* 217 

The designation " son of Aaron " as a title for the 
high-priest, on which the circle of critics just alluded 
to lays so much stress as being a peculiarity of the 
"Priests' Code," is found already in this very code, 
in the process of passing over into the usage of the 
historical books. The defection of Nadab and Abihu, 
who were also "sons of Aaron," no doubt contributed 
to hasten the change. This title, in itself considered, 
had ceased to mark the high distinction conveyed by 
the words as originally used ; and other things, like 
this act of Phinehas, are employed to add honor to 
the sacred official position. Phinehas succeeded his 
father Eleazer (Judges xx. 20), and, excepting a brief 
interruption between the time of Eli and David, the 
line, as far as we have any knowledge of it, was con- 
tinued in his descendants 

It cannot be shown that in any period of the history, 
leaving out the thoroughly abnormal one of the judges, 
the high-priest £ver held any other position relative 
to the other priests and the common people than 
that accorded him in our code. The same desig- 
nation is everywhere applied to him, namely, "the 
priest," that we find given to the chief of the order 
in the middle books of the Pentateuch. Nowhere 
do we find any other person than the high-priest 
permitted to enter the holy of holies for the perform- 
ance of priestly duties. In short, the representation 
that there are four stages of development in the 
history of the Israelitish priesthood from the Jeho- 
vistic period, when there was no priest, through the 
Deuteronomic, when there was no distinction between 
priests and Levites, to Ezekiel's day, when a distinc- 
tive family of priests arises, and to the "Priests' Code" 
of the exile, when this family, falsely tracing its lineage 



2 1 8 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

back to Aaron and setting a high-priest at its head, 
dominates alike the whole civil and religious life of 
Israel, is a pure invention, and at every step opposed 
to the plainest statements of the history. 

" The post-exilian period of the hierocracy," says 
Delitzsch, " of which it is claimed that the ' Priests' 
Code ' was meant to furnish the legal basis, does not 
exist. The high-priesthood of Eleazer's line with its 
attendant priests stands alongside of Ezra and Nehe- 
miah just as little distinguished as that of Ithamar 
alongside of Samuel. The relation in which Ezra and 
Nehemiah stood to the priesthood and the priesthood 
to them positively precludes the idea that either 
intended, by means of a new Torah, to make the 
priesthood a ruling-force in the new state. And, in 
fact, it is not ^ hierocracy,' but * legalism,' that is the 
right word to characterize the impulse which Ezra 
the scribe gave to Judaism." ^ 

Requirements of those Eating of the Sacrificial Offej'- 
ings (Lev. xxii. 1-16; Num. xviii. 10 £f.). — -As a part 
of the *' Priests' Code," if that code have the origin and 
the significance claimed for it by many critics, the law 
relating to the disabilities unfitting a priest to share in 
the sacrificial meals has not only no pertinence, but is 
antagonistic to its spirit and calculated to defeat the 
purpose which is supposed to have prompted it. It is 
not a statute that brings honor and privilege to the 
**sons of Aaron," but one that curtails his privileges 
and puts him in humbling contrast with his high office. 
Whether he eats or drinks, or whatever he does, he is 
not to forget that he is made a priest after the law of a 
carnal commandment" (Heb. vii. 16), that he has 
" infirmities " and needs to offer up sacrifices " first for 
his own sins " {ibid. vs. 27, 28). 

"^Zcitschriftfilr Kirchliche IVisscnschn/t, etc. iS8o, p. 234. 



Laws Pecidiar to tJie ^'Priests' CodeP 219 

This is not the representation we should look for in 
a scheme concocted for their own benefit by a coterie 
of aspiring men of Ezra's day. It is, however, con- 
spicuously that of the Levitical code in every part. It 
is equally that of the earliest and latest history. It is 
Moses who acts as mediator and voices the divine 
authority during the exodus period. Aaron is through- 
out a secondary figure. His very first attempt at 
leadership in his brother's absence is an acknowledged 
blunder and proves a wellnigh fatal one (Ex. xxxii.). 
It is Moses who ultimately transfers to the elder 
brother his delegated office : an office whose sanctity in 
itself, as over against the prerogatives of any person, 
was signally indicated in the swift punishment of 
irreverence on the part of Aaron's eldest sons, who 
sought to prostitute it to their selfish ends. And when, 
in later days, the father himself, in proud reliance on 
his sacerdotal preeminence, ventures with Miriam to 
antagonize and- call in question Moses' authority 
(Num. xii. 2), the rebuke he merits and receives is 
of one piece with that administered to Aaron's recreant 
descendants by Ezra and Nehemiah in the later day 
(Neh. xiii. 28, 29). 

Special Prerogatives of Priests (Num. vi. 22-27 \ ^• 
i-io). — Among the peculiar prerogatives of Aaron's 
sons, that of the priestly benediction and that of 
carrying the silver signal-trumpets are pertinent to our 
present investigations. The code before us, in har- 
mony with other phases of the law and with the 
history, makes the proper benediction a priestly act. 
Kayser,^ however, with some others, has claimed that 
in Deuteronomy the Levite also is invested with this 
function (Deut. x. 8). In his general statement he is 

^ Z>as Vorexilische Buck, etc. p. 131. 



220 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

correct, but is wholly mistaken in his application of it. 
The Levites are not technically spoken of in Deuter- 
onomy, in distinction from priests, but simply as con- 
stituting one of the tribes of Israel and so including 
priests as well as ministers of a lower grade. And as 
it regards the latter function it must not be overlooked 
that the original purpose of the silver trumpets pre- 
supposes the Mosaic age. The principal use assigned 
them is to summon the assemblies that should gather 
at the door of the tabernacle and to give the signal for 
the ''journeying of the camps." If it be an example 
of ''legal fiction," we can see no occasion to justify its 
employment in the present instance. On the contrary, 
the history of the exilian period (Ezra iii. lo; Neh. xii. 
35) and, in fact, of the usage generally, after the 
building of Solomon's temple, shows no such uniformity 
as it respects the employment of horns in religious 
services as to lead to the supposition that the present 
law is an invention, and crowns a development that 
culminated in the fifth century B.C. 

The Tabernacle (Ex. xxv.-xxviii. 19. Cf. xxxvi.- 
xxxviii.). — It can scarcely be doubted by a candid mind 
that the story of the Jewish tabernacle has an historical 
basis, or that for its conception we must look to the 
Mosaic period. To make it merely an ideal picture of 
the Babylonian exiles, a reflection of Solomon's temple 
projected backward by a vivid fancy upon the distant 
canvas of Hebrew mythology, is to be as untrue to the 
records that furnish us with our only account of the 
structure as to any normal function of the imagina- 
tion. The critic, indeed, in this way gets a theory of 
the tabernacle that suits to some degree his theory of 
development in the history ; but it is at a fatal cost. 
How then, on any proper principles of historical devel- 
opment, is the temple itself to be accounted for .'* 



Laws Pectdiar to the '^Priests' Code.'' 221 

Perhaps, however, so inopportune a query will be 
regarded as also an impertinence. Given the theory 
that you have an elephant and a tortoise for the earth 
to rest its crushing weight upon, what difference can it 
make whether it be elephant or tortoise that is left 
dangling in the abyss ? 

The reality of the Mosaic tabernacle and its principal 
furniture is vouched for not alone by the Elohistic 
" Priests' Code " with laws relating to it that breathe 
everywhere the Mosaic spirit (Lev. xvii.), but also by 
each of the other alleged leading documents of the 
Pentateuch (Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1 ; Num. x. 35 f. ; xi. 16 f . ; 
Deut. X. 1-5 ; xxxi. 14 f.). This testimony the earliest 
history circumstantially confirms. Jehovah is repre- 
sented, for example, by the prophet Nathan as not 
having dwelt in a house from the day that he brought 
the children of Israel out of Egypt, but in a tent and 
in a tabernacle (2 Sam. vii. 6 f.). David, accordingly, 
when he prepares on Mount Zion a place for the ark 
erects a tent for its reception. Without an accepted 
Mosaic precedent for such an act, it would have been, 
especially in view of the recent history of the ark, in 
the highest degree unnatural, not to say incomprehen- 
sible or impossible. 

When this conclusion, however, has been reached we 
are not yet clear of difficulties. Not that, with our 
present knowledge of Egypt and the presumed grade 
of civilization attained by Israel, we are troubled with 
questions concerning the costly materials employed in 
the structure of the tabernacle, the skilled labor 
demanded, or the brevity of the time apparently 
allotted to the rearing of so complex and costly a 
sanctuary. We have only to think of the pyramids ; 
and, further, that this very people was fresh from 



222 TJie P (mtateiLcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

labors on the treasure-houses of Pharaoh. Neither 
does the matter of transportation present any greater 
perplexities. With no necessity of haste and an army 
of laborers at command, what obstacle could a country 
otherwise impassable to loaded vehicles have offered to 
the march of Israel as historically described } If a 
greater carrying-power is required of the Levitical 
family of Merari than of that of Kohath or Gershom, 
it cannot be denied that it is also found to be more 
numerous by nearly a third (Num. iv. 34-49) and that 
special facilities are documentarily conceded to it for 
its service. 

To hold with Riehm, following Kamphausen,i that 
thirty-two hundred able-bodied men between the ages 
of thirty and fifty years, with at least four wagons and 
four yoke of oxen at their disposal (Num. vii. 8), were 
insufficient to bear such parts of the tabernacle as are 
assigned to them in the records is to betray an excess 
of captiousness.^ 

But an objection of a more serious nature is urged. 
The Pentateuch recognizes, it is said, a twofold taber- 
nacle. The tabernacle of the " Priests' Code " is one 
affair; that of the earlier documents quite another. 
The first tabernacle is properly no tabernacle at all in 
a technical sense. It is a simple tent, without parapher- 
nalia of any sort. The position assigned it, contrary 
to that of the " Priests' Code," is outside the camp and 
at a distance from it (Ex. xxxiii. 7-1 1). It alone is 
honored by the presence of the cloudy pillar, and among 

1 See art. " Stiftshiitte " in Riehm's Handworterbiich. It would appear from Num. 
iv. 32 that the four wagons named were not the sole dependence for purposes of transpor- 
tation. 

2 The inconsistency of much of our modern criticism is exhibited in no way more fre- 
quently perhaps, or more characteristically, than in this, that from making literary prodi- 
gies of our biblical writers and editors, it proceeds, in the ne.\t breath, to make of them 
bunglers of the first rank. 



Laws Peculiar to the '^Priests Code'* 223 

other historical events connected only with it was that 
of the election of the seventy elders and their spiritual 
enduement (Ex. xiii. 21 ; Num. x. 33; xii. 5 ; xiv. 14). 

What, now, is to be said of this hypothesis and 
the historical statements adduced in its behalf ? The 
apparent discrepancies in the documents Wellhausen 
and his supporters have known how to utilize to the 
utmost in favor of a theory that separates them by man}-- 
centuries of development. He puts them so far apart, 
indeed, that only a man as sagacious as the final 
redactor of the Pentateuch could ever have seen any 
connection between them, or one with his charac- 
teristic temerity have thought to harmonize them as 
a common product of the Mosaic period.^ But all 
critics, fortunately, have not to struggle with so credu- 
lous an incredulity as that of Julius Wellhausen. 

A more modest theory to explain the alleged phe- 
nomena of the documents is that of Riehm^ and others. 
The tabernacle of the " Priests' Code "is no invention 
of the fifth century before Christ, it is said ; it is no 
invention at all. It is the reflection of the Davidic 
tabernacle backward into the Mosaic age. It is the 
tabernacle as the times of David actually knew it that 
the pen of the Elohist has sketched for us. Wholly 
diverse from that described in the supposed earlier 
records it is not, but a natural outgrowth of it and 
holding the same relation to it that the royal period of 
Israel held to that of the exodus. Admitting the 
hypothesis of the documents, this effort of Riehm to 
harmonize them is certainly a marked improvement on 
that of Wellhausen. 

But would not a still easier method of explaining the 

1 See Wellhausen, Geschzchie, i. p. 40 ff. Cf. W. Robertson Smith's Old Testament 
in the yewish Chicrch, pp. 318, 432. 

2 Ibid. p. 1567. 



224 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

history and laws in harmony with themselves be, to 
discard entirely the hypothesis of separate documents 
in the narrative and law of the tabernacle ? The 
hypothesis certainly needs the support of the alleged 
discrepancies much more than the alleged discrepancies 
need that of different documents. 

If, in short, it be a matter of choosing between rival 
theories to explain the phenomena, the traditional one 
seems to us every way to be preferred. That the 
Elohist and Jehovist and even the Deuteronomist and 
Redactor are all combined in one person in this matter 
it would be far easier to believe than that any two of 
them are so much at loggerheads as to require theories 
of the nature of those proposed to reconcile them. 

Looking at the matter, then, as it is historically pre- 
sented to us, we discover that after Moses received the 
order to build the tabernacle the dreadful defection of 
the people, in the matter of the golden calf, took place. 
This naturally interrupted the execution of the plan. 
In the meantime a provisional tent was used, not 
improperly called by the name subsequently given to 
the tabernacle, " tent of meeting " ; since it, too, 
actually served as the meeting-place of the congrega- 
tion. It is pitched at a short remove from the encamp- 
ment, in order, as the historian is careful to inform us, 
to manifest the divine displeasure at Israel's recent sin 
(Ex. xxxiii. 7). It is not in the midst of the camp 
(Num. xi. 24, 26, 30; xii. 4, 5) ; but just as little is it 
wholly apart from it. It is nowhere said, as has been 
affirmed, that, on the march, this primitive tabernacle 
was born aloft before the host. This is stated only 
concerning the ark. It is sometimes called the taber- 
nacle, indeed, but only by a well-known usage of the 
definite article in Hebrew whereby a certain definite 



Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests^ Code^ 225 

conception of an object by the writer and his readers 
is indicated. 

This very tent, moreover, had probably been known 
before as the tent of Moses. Here God had made 
special communications with his servant (Ex. xviii. 
13-16). Joshua, as temporary leader in Moses* absence, 
occupies it (Ex. xxxiii. 11). There is no impropriety in 
his doing so previous . to the establishment of the 
Levitical system. For the same reason God without 
the mediation of sacrifice makes revelations of himself 
here (Ex. xxxiii. 7, 9, 11 ; cf. xiii. 21). It is before 
their legal institution and the introduction of the ritual. 
Now, when so much has been admitted, all the princi- 
pal difficulties involved in the narrative have disap- 
peared.^ To stigmatize such explanations, moreover, 
as '' harmonistic " is not to overthrow them. The 
problem is one of harmonizing apparently conflicting 
statements whatever theory is adopted. If, in the well- 
known case that was brought before Solomon for deci- 
sion (i Kings iii. 16-28) the living child that was in 
dispute had been divided by the sword, the conflict 
would, indeed, have been finally adjusted : but only 
by the irremediable loss of the one precious thing at 
stake. So here the knife is one way of forever settling 
the question : but it should be the very last to be 
resorted to. 

The Fiuiiiture of the Tabernacle. — Of the articles 
of furniture found in the tabernacle, the ark was 
the only one ever admitted to the holy of holies 
(Ex. XXV. 10-22). Its correspondence in conception to 

1 Cf. Ranke, UiiterszicJiung 'uber den Pentateuch, ii. 6i, 68; Kurtz, History of the 
Old Covenant, iii. 171 ; Green, Moses and the Prophets, p. 57 f. It would not serve in 
any degree to disprove the origin of the legitimate and only tabernacle in the Mosaic 
period if it could be shown, as some claim, that the work upon it was not completed in all 
its details until after its formal dedication (cf. Num. xvi. 38 f. ; xxxi. 52 ff.) . The contrary 
might, indeed, have been most confidently expected. 



226 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 



similar objects of veneration among contemporaneous 
peoples has already been remarked. And, if its 
hereditary name, pointing back to the giving of 
the law on Sinai, were not a sufficient link of con- 
nection with the records of the Jehovist, there is 
no lack of evidence to vindicate its claim to be 
historic and Mosaic. It appears in Deuteronomy 
(x. 3), repeatedly in Joshua (iii., vi., xviii.), in Judges 
(xx. 26 £f.), in Samuel (2 Sam. xv. 25), and Kings 
(i Kings viii.), until, finally, it is lodged within the 
sacred precincts of the temple of Solomon. Of its 
fortunes subsequent to the time of Isaiah (2 Chron. 
xxxiii. 7 ; xxxv. 3), we have no account. The temple 
or Zerubbabel was clearly without it ; and hence 
by no fiction of Ezra could it have been smuggled 
into the history of the earlier times. 

The Altar of Incense had its place "before the vail " 
(Ex. XXX. I -2 1, 34-38), but so near to the holy of 
holies as to share somewhat in its sacredness (i Kings, 
vi. 22 ; cf. Heb. ix. 4). The narrative of its form and 
function, being exceptionally found in a section by 
itself, has given rise to the theory that it is a still later 
accretion of the exilian '' Priests' Code." On so slight 
a foundation many a pretentious structure of the 
criticism is reared. But there can be no doubt that 
the temple of Solomon had an altar of incense 
(i Kings, vi. 20 ; vii. 48 ; ix. 25). Why then should 
a code originating after that period be of the form 
of ours, bringing in the regulations for this altar as 
a kind of appendix or afterthought ? 

It is difficult, it is true, to explain the peculiar 
arrangement of sections on the supposition that the 
law arose in the exodus period ; but the difficulty is 
greatly enhanced if the interior of Solomon's temple 



Laws Peculiar to the ^'Priests' Code.'' 227 

furnished the norm and guide. Moreover, it is a 
significant fact that the altar of incense in Solomon's 
temple was made of cedar ; that of the " Priests' Code " 
is constructed of acacia {spina JEgyptiaca), If now, the 
wise and forethoughtful legislator of the later day is 
looking through an inverted telescope at Solomon's 
temple in order to form his picture of the exodus 
period, why has he overlooked this circumstance ? 
That he has an eye for details we have abundant proof. 
The altar of incense in the second temple, so far as we 
can judge, is formed on the model of the " Priests' 
Code." 

And what is true of the altar of incense is true also 
of the principal remaining articles of the original 
tabernacle. They are each and all represented as 
differing, to some extent, from those of the first 
temple, while agreeing with those restored and used 
in the second. 

The table of skew-bread as described in the " Priests' 
Code" was an exceedingly simple structure of acacia 
wood (Ex. XXV. 23-30 ; Lev. xxiv. 5-9). There is every 
reason to believe that the one found in Zerubbabel's 
temple followed its specifications (i Mace. i. 22 ; iv. 49). 
We read nowhere in the earlier or later history that 
more than one table was used for this purpose at one 
and the same time. But in Solomon's day, we are told 
that the number rose to ten, five being placed on the 
right and five on the left of the entrance into the holy 
of holies (2 Chron. iv. 8, 19; cf. i Chron. xxviii. 16). 

In like manner and to a like extent the number 
of candlesticks was multiplied in Solomon's temple 
(i Kings vii. 49 ; 2 Chron. iv. 7) ; and they seem to 
have remained at that number until carried away by 
the Babylonian conquerors (Jer. lii. 19). The exiles, 



228 The Pentateuch: Its Oris^in and Structure. 



^> 



however, on their return from Babylon made, provision 
but for one (i Mace. i. 22), in harmony with the alleged 
original code (Ex. xxvii. 20, 21 ; Lev. xxiv. 1-4; Num. 
viii. 1-4). 

The a/tar of burnt-offering appears to have undergone 
similar changes in its history. That of the tabernacle, 
in material, size, and the provision made for approaching 
it (Ex. xxvii. I ff. ; xxxviii. i ff.), differed considerably 
from the one used in the royal period (i Kings viii. 64 ; 
2 Chron. iv. i ; vii. 7). Of the altar of burnt-offering 
in Zerubbabel's temple we find no special description. 
But we may safely infer from various hints that it 
also went back for its model to the simplicity of the 
supposed original one (i Mace. iv. 47) and not to the 
precedent of Solomon. Wellhausen directly asserts 
that this was the case.^ 

Now in each of these instances, and the argument is 
the stronger from the fact that there are four of them, 
the conclusion to be drawn is inevitable. The practice 
of the exiles from Babylon conforms to the regula- 
tions of the " Priests' Code " and not to the usage of 
the first temple. We may suppose, then, either that 
the " Priests' Code " arose at this period or we may 
suppose that it was followed because it was univer- 
sally regarded by the Jews as Mosaic and authoritative. 
We cannot suppose that, having its origin at this late 
day, it was in any sense a projection of the first temple 
backward into the Mosaic period. Such an hypothesis 
must be regarded as, in the circumstances, impossible. 

This being so, then I submit that we are shut up to 
the conclusion that this code did not originate with 
Ezra or any contemporary of his, but was adopted in 
preference to the usages of the first temple because it 

^ Geschiclite, I. p. 30 and note. 



Laws Pcctiliar to the '^Priests Code!' 229 

was looked upon as the primitive and obligatory form 
of the legislation. For we can easily understand how 
the priests of the later day should wish to sanction and 
follow national religious institutions in their original 
form. But how quasiM.os>2iz legislators of these times 
or of any other period subsequent to Solomon should 
wish, or dare, to counterwork ordinances like those of the 
first temple if these were up to that time the only ones 
in existence is incomprehensible. What could be more 
completely at variance with the statement that there 
were many priests, Levites and chief of the fathers, 
old men, who had seen the glory of the first house and 
"wept with a loud voice " at the relative meanness of 
the second (Ezra iii. 12, 13) } It is tenfold more likely, 
in short, that the so-called '' Priests' Code " is actually 
antique and Mosaic, than that, while offering these 
sharp contrasts to the practice of the golden and proto- 
typal period of Hebrew history, it only pretends to 
be so. 

The Bitrnt-Ojfej'ing (Lev. i. 1-17 ; vi. 1-6; Num. 
xxviii. 1-15). — All of the laws of the Book of Leviticus 
and of the first ten chapters of Numbers are repre- 
sented as having been given during the fifty years 
intervening between the setting up of the tabernacle 
and the departure from Sinai (with Ex. xl. 17 cf. Num. 
X. 11). But one of the first things we notice in the 
ritual of the burnt-offering is that this form of offering 
is presupposed as something already existing : " If any 
man of you bring " (that is, according to custom). 
This is in harmony with what we learn of the earliest 
forms of sacrifice among the patriarchs. The burnt- 
offering and peace-offering, as we have already shown, 
were their type (Gen. viii. 20 ; xxii. 7 ; xxxi. 54 ; xlvi. 
I ; Job i. 5 ; xlii. 8). 



230 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 

We fail to find the marked transition, said to 
exist between the Jehovist and Elohist documents in 
passing from one to the other. Nor do we discover 
anything in the whole ritual of the burnt-offering as it 
appears in Leviticus and Numbers, the presentation, 
the imposition of hands, the slaughter, the disposition 
of the blood, the consumption of the victim, that unfits 
it for the exodus period. That it extends beyond the 
simple rites of an Abel or an Abraham should not 
surprise us. It is intended for a people new-born 
from Egypt. Earlier custom, however, as we have said, 
undoubtedly forms the basis of the system and it has 
precisely the same origin and the same authority as 
the so-called primitive (Sinaitic) laws of the Pentateuch 
(Ex. XX. 23-26; xxiii. 18 f. ; xxxiv. iv. 25). 

Meal and Drink Offerings (Lev. ii. 1-6, 7-1 1 ; 
x. 12, 13; Num. XV. 1-12; cf. Num. xxviii.). — Offering 
to God some portion of the products of the earth by 
which the offerer is sustained has a basis in nature 
and not simply in ecclesiasticism. David pointed it 
out when he said : '' All things come of thee and of 
thine own have we given thee" (i Chron. xxix. 14). 

The drink-offering is never found — as was common 
in heathen religions — by itself, in the Mosaic ritual, 
but invariably in connection with the meal-offering. It 
is worthy of notice also that no part of the wine used 
in this offering formed any part of the priests' perqui- 
sites (Lev. x. 9; cf. Ecclus. 1. 15). 

The fact that the vessels used for making the drink- 
offering are mentioned as a part of the furniture of the 
table of shew-bread is no evidence of a more ancient 
practice, in accordance with which wine as well as 
bread was exhibited upon it. They are mentioned 
when and as they are simply because it was found most 



Lazvs Peculiar to the ^^ Priests' Code!' 231 

convenient so to enumerate them. They are in pre- 
cisely the same category, in this respect, as the pots in 
which the sacred frankincense was kept (Ex. xxv. 29). 

It can be regarded, moreover, as no intentional color- 
ing of the record, but an incidental circumstance of 
great significance, that the meal and drink offerings as 
accompaniments of other more important sacrifices are 
only prospectively prescribed in the '' Priests' Code." 
They are represented as designed for a future period, 
that which should follow the conquest of Palestine. 
"Speak unto the children " is the form with which the 
statute is introduced, ''and say unto them. When ye 
have come into the land of your habitations which I 
am giving unto you," etc. (Num. xv. 2). 

Peace-OffejHngs (Lev. iii. i-i7;vii. 11-21, 28-34; ^i^- 
5-8 ; xxii. 29, 30). — The peace (or thank) offering, there 
can be no doubt, was common before the time of Moses 
(Gen. xxxi. 54; xlvi. i ; Ex. x. 25 ; xxxii. 6), and not 
alone among the Hebrews but other neighboring 
peoples. Its most essential characteristic, the accom- 
panying feast participated in symbolically by God and 
really by the offerer and his friends was merely the 
recognition of a mutual covenant, in a form universally 
practised in the Orient. The ritual of this class of 
sacrifices as found in the ''Priests' Code" presents no 
single feature that is out of harmony with its alleged 
origin in the Mosaic period. The two names given to 
it indicate simply two different points of view : the one 
referring more particularly to the outward rite ; ^ the 
other,2 to the underlying moral significance of it. If 
the theory of a late date for the " Priests' Code " were 
correct, we might have expected to find the latter term 
only in the youngest documents, which is not the case 
(Ex. XX. 24 ; xxiv. 5). 

1 Zebhach. 2 Sheletn. 



232 The PentateucJi : Its Origi7t and S true here. 

The Sin-Offering (Lev. iv. ; v. 1 3 ; vi. 17; Num. xv. 
22-28). — It is significant that in the order of narration 
the sin-offering follows those above mentioned, although 
as a matter of ritual it ordinarily preceded them when 
all were presented at the same time. The others had 
been in use before the days of Moses. This, at least 
in its present form, had not. The immediate object of 
the sin-offering was expiation, as that of the trespass- 
offering was satisfaction or restitution. 

In saying, now, that technically speaking there are 
no signs of the existence of sin-offerings before the 
time of Moses, that is, that they had no existence, 
except as all bloody offerings were understood to be of 
the nature of an atoning sacrifice, we do not, by any 
means, unfavorably prejudice the position that they 
originated with him. For there is nothing in this form 
of sacrifice, per se, to make it an anachronism in his 
time, while the ritual itself, in its outward form, is 
indubitably impressed with marks of the exodus period. 
The bullock, for example, that is to be offered up, is to 
be brought to the " door of the tabernacle of the con- 
gregation before the Lord " (Lev. iv. 4 ; cf. vs. 5, 7, 15, 
16, 18). After its slaughter and the prescribed sprink- 
ling and pouring of its blood about the sanctuary, 
the carcass is to be carried ''without the camp" and 
burned (Lev. iv. 12, 21). 

These are unintentional corroborations of the Mosaic 
origin of the code or they are an intentional shaping 
and coloring of it for purposes of deception. 

That within the Levitical law of the sin-offering 
itself there are expressions suggestive of development, 
as some have intimated (v. 1-6), Delitzsch denies.^ 
And that from the beginning of the eighth century B.C. 

* s.v. " Siindopfcr " in Riehm's Handwdrtcrbuch. 



Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests' Code^ 233 

the post-Mosaic history is without an adequate recogni- 
tion of its existence I have elsewhere shown to be an 
error.^ 

The Trespass-Offering (Lev. v. 14-26 ; vii. i-io ; 
Num. V. 5-10). — Besides the differences just noted as 
existing between the sin and the trespass offering, 
there were also others. In the case of the latter, the 
victim must be either a ram or a sheep ; in the former, 
it depended on the rank and ability of the offerer what 
it should be. In the trespass-offering there was a defi- 
nite restitution required for injuries done ; in the other, 
the sacrifice alone sufficed. The trespass-offering was 
always of a private and individual character, the sin- 
offering might be for a community or the whole people. 
In the case of the trespass-offering, the blood of the 
victim was sprinkled only on the sides of the altar ; in 
the other, there was a variety of solemn ceremonies 
prescribed for it. And it may be said, in general, that, 
as might have been expected, the ritual of the sin- 
offering is of a much more serious and rigid character 
than the other. That among Mosaic institutions 
room should be found for distinctions as fine and as 
detailed as these cannot be accounted strange when in 
the original Sinaitic code ritualistic and other similar 
discriminations scarcely less sharp are made (Ex. xx. 
22, 23 ; xxi. 1-6 et passiifi). 

The assertion, now, that the trespass-offering is but 
a subordinate development out of the sin-offering, 
from which it was differentiated by the finical scribes 
of the later day, has no historical evidence in its sup- 
port. If there were development- in the premises, it 
might have been expected in just the contrary direc- 
tion, the stricter form following the more lax. This 

1 See p. 99 f. 



234 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

order alone, moreover, would be in harmony with the 
general position of the critics who offer the hypothesis. 
That the terminology of the Pentateuch does not 
always indicate clear distinctions is true.^ But such 
instances are exceedingly rare and exceptional. In- 
deed, omitting a single allusion in 2 Kings xii. 17 — 
which, however, is disputed — and some notices in 
Ezekiel (xl. 39; xlii. 13 ; xliv. 29; xlvi. 20), there is not 
a single reference to the trespass-offering outside the 
Pentateuch before the days of Ezra. The only histori- 
cal observance of it is the one he orders in the case of 
those who had married foreign wives. 

The very nature of the offering furnishes just and 
sufficient ground for this. It is, as before remarked, of 
a purely private and individual character. For this 
reason, doubtless, it is not mentioned in connection 
with burnt and sin offerings in the well-known passage 
of the Psalms (xl. 7). The post-exilian literature is as 
bare of it as the preexilian (Bar. i. 10). Consequently, 
the argument from silence is worthless for proving the 
earlier non-existence of this form of sacrifice. When, 
in the post-Mosaic times, it is first mentioned (see the 
passages in Ezekiel above cited), it is without circumlo- 
cution or explanation of any sort, as something already 
understood. No law original with the exilian scribes, 
or in their period, could have been introduced with the 
abruptness and apparent inattention of this, in the 
Book of Ezra, where (x. 19) it is said of the offending 
priests : " And having trespassed, (they furnished) a 
ram of the flock for their trespass." 

Of Release from Vows (Lev. xxvii. 1-34). — It is 
noticeable that the chapter which contains the law 
concerning vows, especially their commutation, is 

^ Once (Num. v. 8) the rain of the trespass-offering is entitled a " sin-offering.f 



Laws Peculiar to the ''Priests Code!' 235 

made apparently with design an appendix to the 
Sinaitic legislation (of. Lev. xxvi. 46;. It concerns the 
regulation of a permanent custom (cf. Gen. xxviii. 20 ff. ; 
Deut. xxiii. 22-24), which might not be overlooked, but 
which, properly speaking, formed no part of the posi- 
tive religious institutions of Israel. 

The Hebrew literature shows that vows of a religious 
nature were exceedingly common in the earlier periods 
of the history, and this of itself would render it 
exceedingly probable that they early came under the 
restriction of written law (Judges xi. 30 ; i Sam. i. 1 1 ; 
Job xxii. 27; Jon. i. 16; Prov. xx. 25; Eccles. v. 3-5). 

Again, it is clear that regulations of this sort would 
be far more likely to spring up in the period before the 
conquest, when such high hopes ruled respecting the 
promised land, than in the poverty-stricken times of 
Ezra when, even for the ordinary sacrifices required by 
their ritual, the Israelites were so largely dependent on 
the generosity of their Persian lords (cf. Ezra vii. 
1 1-26). 

And, still further, the exilian and post-exilian prac- 
tice in the matter of vows is of such a nature as to 
render extremely precarious the theory that our present 
law arose in, or about, the year 444 b.c. Malachi, 
whose prophecy dates from the time of the second resi- 
dence of Nehemiah in Jerusalem, we find castigating 
the contemporary Israelite for so bold an evasion of 
our code as the substitution of a worthless female 
victim in place of the male that had been pledged 
(i. 14). He singles out for condemnation, that is, a 
form of transgression which on the supposition of the 
introduction of this code just before would have been 
next to impossible. It had expressly forbidden this 
very thing, and, what is more to the point, forbidden it 



236 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

on the penalty of losing both the animals (Lev. xxvii. 
10). Moreover, from this time downward the degen- 
eracy grew apace, until at the beginning of the Chris- 
tian era men had come to excuse themselves from the 
holiest of duties on the vain plea that they had made 
a vow conflicting with them (Matt. xv. 5 ; Mark 
vii. 9 ff.). 

Of the Nazarite (Num. vi. 1-2 1). — The vow of the 
Nazarite differed from the ordinary one in that it 
affected the person, was one of abstinence and of 
separation unto the Lord. It was a kind of volun- 
tarily assumed priestly sanctity. The long hair of 
the Nazarite, it might be said, answered, in its way, 
to the regalia of the sons of Aaron. His abstemious- 
ness and avoidance of ceremonial defilement went even 
beyond theirs. His whole life, as a Nazarite, must 
begin anew, if, by chance or by design, his vow had 
been violated. 

That this peculiar institution, now, was of Shemitic 
origin (cf. Jer. xxxv.) and that it antedated the age of 
Moses there can be no reasonable doubt. The cases 
of Samson and of Jephtha show that it was already a 
well-known custom in the period of the judges. And 
the law before us has clearly the aim to regulate the 
custom in unison with the ritual of the central sanctu- 
ary. When the prophet Amos (ii. 11, 12) fixes upon 
this as a characteristic mark of the desperatcness of 
his times, that when God had raised up Nazarites 
among his contemporaries of the northern kingdom, 
they had given them wine to drink, it is alone the 
recognized legal obligation of the Nazarite that gives 
special pertinency and force to the charge. 

The revival and expansion of the order in the time 
of the Maccabees is quite too late a phenomenon to be 



Lazvs Peculiar to the ^'Priests CodeT 237 

an echo of exilian legislation (cf. i Mace. iii. 49). Not 
a trace, in fact, appears of it from the purely incidental 
reference of Amos to the equally incidental one amidst 
the reforms of Judas Maccabseus. Priests were not so 
plentiful on the return from Babylon, nor a life of 
sanctity so sought after, that a law of the nature of 
this would have been the natural product of the 
period ; or, if arising then, would have been so com- 
pletely overlooked by its chosen annalists. 

Rite of PiLvification at Childbirth (Lev. xii. 1-18). 
— It is to be emphatically denied that the Bible gives 
any encouragement to the sentiment that the mere 
act of giving birth, or the fact of having given birth, 
is a defilement. The condition into Vvdiich a woman 
is brought by the birth of a child is said rather to 
be like the impurity of her monthly illness (vs. 2). It 
was, to a certain extent, the effect and evidence of 
death. Such death, as the penalty of sin, had not 
only a physical, but a moral, character. One needed, 
therefore, to be ceremonially purified from it. Now, 
while the Jews shared with other nations of antiquity 
this general sentiment and various laws of purification, 
still they moved on quite another plane. It cannot 
be shown that either in their deeper moral sense of 
what this impurity was or their special rules for rec- 
ognizing it and freeing themselves from it, they were 
indebted to popular influences without themselves. 
We know of no nation antedating Israel, and in con- 
tact with it, that could have supplied these regula- 
tions, much less giving evidence of an ethical standard 
requiring them. 

We find, moreover, the prophets of the earliest 
period, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, 
governed by the same general conception, and appar- 



238 The Pentateuch : Its Origm and StriLctnre. 

ently appealing to the same fixed laws, that appear 
on this subject in Leviticus (Hos. ix. 3 f. ; Am. vii. 
17; Mic. ii. 10; Is. XXX. 22 ; Jer. xix. 13 ; cf. 2 Kings 
xxiii. 10). 

The priest-prophet Ezekiel, it is true, shows an 
enhanced interest and zeal in the direction of cere- 
monial purity. But it is no more than might have 
been expected from one who represented here the 
bloom of prophetical teaching. For there can be no 
doubt that it was the prophets who practically did 
most toward developing, in Israel, the inclination for 
ceremonialism, even while fighting it in itself, by the 
very stress they laid on the ethical verities that lay 
beneath it. The development everywhere is of such 
a sort as to require the presupposition of some reg- 
ulative norm corresponding to the law of the middle 
books of the Pentateuch. It is too uniform, it is too 
persistent, it is too serious in its demands upon the 
conscience to be the offspring only of an uncertain, 
popular custom. 

Purification by Means of the Ashes of a Red Heifer 
(Num. xix. 1-22). — In the peculiar ceremonial of puri- 
fication in which the ashes of a red heifer were 
employed, it was still the sense of impurity produced 
by death that chiefly ruled. And it is not to be over- 
looked that it is the Jehovist who places at the begin- 
ning of his document the weighty words : "■ In the 
day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die " 
(Gen. ii. 17). In this one sentence is recognized and 
asserted the vital principle that underlies every 
Elohistic ordinance of purification. 

The present law bears no date and has no history. 
In the order of the narrative, it belongs to the second 
year of the exodus. If it were given in immediate 



Lazvs PcaUiar to the ^^ Priests' Code.'* 239 

connection with the plague that followed the rebellion 
of Korah, as may reasonably be supposed, it could 
have had no wiser setting of circumstances. The 
fact that the divine communication concerning it is 
made to Moses and Aaron is worth noting. It is 
unusual. Aaron's installation as high-priest is thus 
assumed, which, if it be not a conscious perversion 
of the truth, is a striking support of it. 

Then, further, it is to be observed that, notwith- 
standing the high-priesthood of Aaron is so assumed, 
Eleazer is represented as the one who carries out 
in detail the provisions of this statute. This would 
scarcely be the method of an inventor, especially 
of one inspired with the purposes ascribed to the 
exilian projectors of the Levitical system. Besides 
this, the people are spoken of as though still in camp 
(vs. 3, 9). The tabernacle is at the centre of ritual- 
istic worship. Instructions are given, which, in the 
later times, were no longer understood. Others are 
omitted which needed then to be supplied. In fact, 
the form that this rite assumed in post-exilian Judaism 
proves anything else rather than that it was an insti- 
tution owing its origin to the austerities of the Baby- 
lonian exiles.^ The biblical books give us no authority 
for assuming that they ever actually practised it at all. 

Feast on the first of the Seventh Month (Lev. xxiii. 
23-25 ; Num. xxix. 1-6). — The feast whose observance 
was appointed for the opening of the seventh month 
is of importance from a critical point of view out of 
all proportion to any emphasis that is laid upon it in 
the historical books. It is not so much as mentioned 
in these books, or anywhere else in the Bible, out- 
side of the two passages cited from Leviticus and 

1 See Riehm's Handworterbuchy s.v. " Sprengwasser." 



240 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Numbers, unless it be in Neh. viii. 9-12. And if the 
event recorded in Nehemiah be a reference to it, it will 
repay a little careful attention. For it is of this 
passage that it is oracularly declared that it marks 
the primal introduction of the '* Priests' Code." 

It was at this assembly, it is alleged, on the first of 
Tisri of the year B.C. 444, that Ezra, in the presence of 
Nehemiah and with his countenance and cooperation, 
proclaimed to the returned Babylonian captives the 
priestly laws of the middle books of the Torah, to which 
they had hitherto been total strangers. ^ 

But it is remarkable, at the outset, that in this pas- 
sage in Nehemiah the whole people recognize, sponta- 
neously for all that we know to the contrary, the first 
day of the seventh month as one to be scrupulously 
observed. They gather voluntarily at the water-gate 
in Jerusalem on that day. Then, further, we find Ezra, 
without extraordinary announcement reading to the 
gathered populace from ''morning until midday" out 
of what is termed ''the book of the law of Moses." 
The people themselves request him so to do. And the 
book is brought to him from some quarter where it 
seems to have been sacredly deposited. As he reads 
the voice of incontinent weeping breaks forth from the 
assembled multitude. 

What is it that so touches the cords of tender feel- 

1" Dieses Priestergesetz war noch unwirksam als Maleachi auftrat, bis Esra am i. 
Tishri des J. 444 in Beisein Nehemia's vor dem Wasserthore Jerusalems es (nach Giese- 
brecht sogar schon wesentlich so, wie es jetzt im Pentateuch vorliegt, mit den anderen 
Thoroth zusammengearbeitet) proklamirte. Da beugte sich die Priesterschaft, der die 
Hut des mosaischen Gesetzes befohlen war, unj das ganze Yolk in alien seinen Standen 
von oben bis unten sofort widerspruchslos unter dis Joch dieser neuen Thora! Und 
wer war denn dcr Verfasscr des fortan niassgcbcnden Pricstcrkodex? Esra selbst kann 
es sein, sagt Kayser. Aber nein, er iiicht sagt Wellhausen. Wer also denn! Hier fehlt 
die Antwort und unser Staunen waclist, denn uni so kiihner war der Gewaltstreich des 
Reformators und um so schafsmassiger die junge Kolonie, die sich in das neue Gesctz 
von so obskurer Enlstehung einpferchen liess." — Delitzsch, in Zeitschri/tfiirkirchUche 
Wissenscha/t, etc. 1880, p. 62-^. 



Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests Code.'" 241 

ing ? Is it the '' Code of the Priests " ? What part 
of it, pray ? Can it be the detailed instructions given 
for washing, clothing, and installing their ecclesiastical 
leaders ? Or is it the description, chapter by chapter 
and verse by verse, of the tabernacle of Exodus, the 
clever work of Bezaleel and Aholiab, the rings, the 
staves, the curtains, the knops, and the bowls ? If the 
chiefs of the exilian congregation had any real designs 
upon it of the nature described, they would surely have 
spared them an ordeal of this kind. But if it was not 
the Levitical laws that were read and explained and that 
drew forth responses so unexpected and overwhelming, 
then what foothold is there anywhere in the record for 
the theory that this was the occasion of their earliest 
hitrodiLction ? 

Still further, we notice that it is not alone Ezra who 
is concerned in this matter of the first of Tisri, B.C. 
444. On the right hand and on the left, he is officially 
supported by more than a dozen priests whose names 
are carefully given. As many prominent Levites cir- 
culate among the people with the same intent. And 
Nehemiah, the civil governor, does not fail, as we have 
intimated, to second, by word and act, the whole pro- 
ceeding. If it be masquerading in the name and 
character of Moses, it is clear that all the principal 
representatives of Israel are implicated in it. It is 
no usurpation by any single man or class ; it is a 
conspiracy on a gigantic scale. But to suppose that 
these men could thus have duped their contemporaries 
into the acceptance of laws as Mosaic which were 
not so ; to suppose that had they perpetrated such a 
fraud there would not be the slightest trace of it in 
the history or traditions of the period ; to suppose, 
in view of the great moral purpose obviously lying at 



242 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

the basis of this as of all other portions of the 
Pentateuch, that any of these persons, or any one 
associated with them, would wish so to impose on 
the credulity of his generation, are all, and severally, 
impossible suppositions ; and any theory that bases 
its support upon them is unworthy the confidence of 
Christian men. 

Moreover, let us look more closely at the way in 
which these colonists from Ahava celebrate their 
festival. It has every appearance of being an imper- 
fect resumption of customs long neglected. According 
to the ritual of the ''Priests' Code" the day was to be 
introduced by the blowing of trumpets. Here there 
appears to be nothing of the kind. The people are 
far more ready to weep than to rejoice. 

For this day there had been ostensibly appointed, 
too, a fixed number and order of animal sacrifices, 
burnt-offerings, meal-offerings, and sin-offerings. Not 
a vestige of them is seen here, however. On the con- 
trary, after the ceremony of the public reading from 
the Pentateuch has been concluded, the people are 
enjoined, in phraseology as strange to the ritual of 
Leviticus and Numbers as to the earlier historical 
books, to go their way, eat the fat, drink the sweet, 
and send portions to them for whom nothing had 
been prepared. If this were mainly an effort to 
establish and give currency to the cycle of Levitical 
festivals, why are the most essential features of this 
one overlooked and elements so foreign to it authori- 
tatively introduced } 

The Day of Atonement (Ex. xxx. 10; Lev. xvi. 1-34; 
xxiii. 26-32; Num. xxix. 7-1 1). — The most important 
critical questions involved in the ritual and history of 
the day of atonement have been already considered.^ 

1 See p. Ill f. 



Laws Peculiar to the ^'Priests Code''' 243 

The hypothesis that assigns its origin to any late 
period falls by its own weight. It is as true of this 
observance, as of that of the feast of trumpets, that 
no certain mention is made of it in the historical 
books of the Old Testament previous to the exile. But 
the same may be said of the post-exilian annals of 
the Jews. Josephus^ is the very first to refer to the 
matter. The argument from silence, therefore, is of 
no worth in the present case. 

The manner in which it appears in the code, how- 
ever, deserves attention. It is confined to no one phase 
of it, but it is treated in four different passages belong- 
ing to three separate books of the Pentateuch. In 
Exodus there is but a bare allusion ; still one that is as 
significant for its comprehensiveness as for its brevity. 
It presupposes the existence of the ritual and refers to 
the one annual observance of it, which it rigorously 
enjoins for all the future. 

Of the passages in Leviticus, one details in full 
the solemn offices of the high-priest, the other charac- 
terizes the duties and obligations of the day from the 
point of view of the people. In Numbers the required 
sacrifices are enumerated. Such a fourfold presenta- 
tion of the law is a fact of moment. It can never be 
made to harmonize with the assumption that it is a 
product of reflection "by the waters of Babylon." 

Again, if there are no references in the prophets 
or historical books that positively prove a preexilian 
observance of the day of atonement, it is just as 
certain that there are none that disprove its potential 
existence in the statute.^ In the meantime, other 
evidence is not wanting of its Mosaic origin. Every 

1 Antiq., xiv. i6. 4. 

2 Delit2sch has conclusively established this in the Zeitschriftfur Kirchliche Wissen- 
scha/t, pp. 173-181. 



244 ^^^^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

phase of the law is introduced by the statement that 
it comes from him. The very occasion of its first 
announcement is declared to be the conspiracy of Nadab 
and Abihu, a circumstance that has not the slightest 
tinge of invention about it (Lev. xvi. i, 2). It stands 
or falls, moreover, with other alleged Mosaic institu- 
tions, some of which have the support of the Jehovist, 
equally with the Elohist, documents. The doctrine of 
the atonement, in fact, holds no more central place 
in the Christian religious and dogmatic system than 
does the day of atonement in the Jewish ethical and 
ritualistic. There is not, for instance, an allusion to 
the ark with its peculiar covering — and there are more 
than twenty such references in Exodus and Leviticus — 
that does not recognize the one most conspicuous 
feature of the day of atonement. The title "mercy- 
seat " seems to have had no other formal or moral 
basis than the characteristic act of the high-priest in 
sprinkling there the blood of atonement. In the 
second temple there was no ark at all.^ 

Such, now, are a few of the particulars in which laws 
peculiar to the so-called "Priests' Code " may be shown 
to correspond to the character and origin they claim 
for themselves. The great proportion of them, it will 
have been observed, are double-acting. They not 
only favor or force the presumption of the genuine- 
ness of the laws, but they disprove the contrary. 

The testimony, moreover, is singularly uniform and 
hence cumulative. It has a decided qualitative value 
too, as well as one of quantity and uniformity. " It 
is not the evidence of witnesses first schooled and 
cautioned and then brought into court to do their 

1 The technicalities of our law, too, in other respects are just as conspicuously not 
exilian. Its word for f.istinj, for example, is quia, a word which is without a parallel in 
the Pentateuch, another expression being always used for it, 



Lazvs Peculiar to the '^Priests' Code^ 245 

best for the party by whom they are summoned." ^ It 
is the purely incidental testimony rather of scores of 
disconnected facts and events which, notwithstanding, 
point in one direction and voice one conclusion. 

"Every revolution," says Emerson,^ "was first a 
thought in one man's mind, and when the same 
thought occurs to another man it is the key to that 
era. Every reform was once a private opinion, and 
when it shall be a private opinion again, it will solve 
the problem of the age." 

One great difficulty with a certain current type of 
critics is their unwillingness to acknowledge that the 
brain of a Moses could have conceived and have carried 
such a system of laws as we have been considering. 
If it was first a thought in some man's mind, there 
is no man of Old Testament times more likely than 
he to have had that thought. That the same thought 
did not also, at once, occur in ripeness and fulness 
to his contemporaries is no anomaly. Revolutions 
are a growth. Private opinion becomes public opinion 
only by long preparatory processes of evolution, pre- 
ceded by equally long and rigid ones of involution and 
digestion. 

When the thought of Moses did actually occur, if 
formally rather than spiritually, to other men, and 
his private opinion became, by virtue of hard expe- 
rience, their private opinion, it solved the problem of 
post-exilian Judaism ; it became the key to that pro- 
longed after-era of legalism. 

With a lawgiver of Mosaic stature and prescience 
there, with a scribe Ezra here, and a thousand years of 
Israelitish disciplinary history between, no incongruity 
of the narrative surprises us. Given a Moses, this 

1 Isaac Taylor, Historic Proof, London, 1828, pp. 21, 22. 

2 Essays, p. 8. New York; Lovell & Co. 1884. 



246 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Moses of the Bible at the genesis of the development, 
and an Ezra was sure to follow sooner or later. Deny, 
however, the Moses of biblical history and you make 
an Ezra — certainly this Ezra — a wholly impossible 
character. 

The .chief figure of his times, he has in that case 
only his supreme assurance and adroitness to rec- 
ommend him. Portrayed as a man who fasts and 
prays and is eager for reform, we see that it is 
sim.ply as a cloak for plans of self-aggrandizement 
The first to occupy a pulpit, he is the first to 
prostitute it to evil ends. Reputed to have been a 
principal in fixing the canon of the sacred books, 
the information fails to entertain us ; for the books 
on that very account become other than sacred in our 
eyes. In short, it is no fair compensation for a loss 
like that of a Moses of the exodus that we are blandly 
introduced to this Ezra of critical manipulations and 
hypotheses, Our admiration of him grows in inverse 
proportion to our knowledge of his character and the 
biblical record of his life. 



Laws Peculiar to the ^^ Priests Code.'' 



247 



TABLE OF LAWS PECULIAR TO THE 
"PRIESTS' CODE." 



Subject. 


Exodus. 


Leviticus. 


NUMJiEBS. 


Blasphemy, 






24:15,16. 




15:30,3L 


Sacred Vestments, 


28:' 1-43.' 










Consecration of Priests, 


29:1-42. 




6: 12-16'; 8. 






Anointing Oil, 


30:22-33. 




10 : 8-11 ; 21 


: 1-24. 




High Priest from Eleazer's Line, 


. . . . 




. . . 




25 : 10-13. 


Who might Eat of the Sacrifices, 






22 : 1-16. 




18:10 ft-. 


Special Prerogatives of Priests, 


_ 


of. 36 


1-38: '.'.'.'. 




6: 22-27; 10: 1-10. 


Tabernacle and its Furniture, 


25:'l-27il9 

31. 
30:1-21.34 




Altar of Incense, 


-38. 








Table of the Shew-bread, 


25:23-30. 




24:5-9.' 






Care of the Lamps of the Taber- 












nacle, 


27:20,2L 




24:1-4. 




8 : 1-4. 


The Burnt Offering. 


. . . . 




1:1-17; 6: 1-6. 


28:1-15. 


Meal and Drink Offering, 






2: 1-16; 6: 
12, 13. 


7-11; 


10: 

15: 1-12; chap. 28. 


Peace-Offering, 


.... 




3: 1-17; 7: 


11-34; 


19: 








5-8; 22: 29. 30. 




Sin-Offering, 


. . . . 




4-5: 13; 6:] 


7-23. 


15:22-28. 


Trespass-Offering, 






5:14-26:7: 


1-10. 


5 : 5-10. 


Of Belease from Vows, 


. 




27:1-34. 






The Nazarite, 










6:1-2L 


Purification at Childbirth, 






12:' 1-8." 






Purification by the Ashes of i 


I 










Red Heifer, 


' 








19:1-22. 


Initial Feast of Seventh Month, 






23 :' 23-25. 




29: 1-6. 


The Day of Atonement, 


30:" 10. 




16. 1-34; 23 


: 26-32 


. 29:7-U. 



VII. 

UNITY AND GENUINENESS OF DEUTERONOMY. 



The surprise awakened by recent archaeological 
discoveries in Assyria and Egypt has left, as yet, 
little opportunity for gauging their proper scientific and 
religious value. That they are to be accorded a place 
of increasing prominence in the province of biblical 
criticism there can be no doubt. To have, in addition 
to Moses and the prophets, the testimony of such as 
have risen from the dead is a favor not granted to 
every age. The tone of assumption might well grow 
milder and the hand of violence less hasty in the 
presence of witnesses like these. 

We read with less patience an hypothetical history of 
Israel dating simply from the period of the judges, with 
the storehouses of Pithom and their exodus product, of 
bricks with straw and bricks without straw, just rising 
from the dust before us. We spare ourselves the 
strained attention needful to follow a fine-spun argu- 
ment designed to prove the barbarity of the Mosaic 
period, with a voluminous literature in hand reaching 
back to the patriarch Noah, and representing in devel- 
oped form every species of composition known to the 
Bible. We have something tangible with which to 
resolve, at least to make credible, many a so-called 
myth of Genesis in the diluvian slabs of our museums, 
covered with a contemporaneous literature, and artistic 
seals before us which were worn by gentlemen of Ur of 



Unity and Gemcineness of Deuteronomy. 249 

the Chaldees before the days of Abraham. We rise up, 
in short, from the reading of such a book as Sayce's 
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments} Schrader's 
Keilinschriften tuid das Alte Testament^ or Hommel's 
volumes on Die Semiten nnd Hire Bedentnng fiir die Kul- 
tnrgeschichte^ or the works of Brugsch-Bey and Ebers 
on Egypt, with the feeling that, notwithstanding the 
scholarly equipment and stubborn confidence of those 
assailing the historical genuineness of the Pentateuch, 
its defenders have no occasion to be daunted. As often 
before, the earth is helping the woman.* Deductions 
have been based on a far from complete induction. 
The goddess Isis is represented on the Egyptian monu- 
ments with the crux ajisata, or sign of life, in her right 
hand, and in her left, as a wand, a papyrus stem.^ And 
who shall say to what honor the humble papyrus leaf 
and its companion witnesses may yet come in the 
hands of that Providence which began with the begin- 
ning, and will go on with its great purposes to the end, 
of human history } 

Moreover, if the course of Old Testament criticism 
be followed from its inception to the present time 
a similar impression will be made by no small part of 
it of inconsequent claims and preposterous conclusions. 
And to this characterization the Book of Deuteronomy 
offers no exception. It was English deism that first 

^ The Religious Tract Society (London, 1884). This author remarks (Preface, p. 3): 
" The same spirit of scepticism which had rejected the early legends of Greece and Rome 
had laid its hands on the Old Testament and had determined that the sacred histories 
themselves were but a collection of myths and fables. But suddenly, as with the wand of 
a magician, the ancient eastern world has been reawakened to life by the spade of the 
explorer and the patient skill of the decipherer, and now we find ourselves in the presence 
of monuments which bear the names or recount the deeds of the heroes of Scrip ture. One 
by one these ' stones crying cut ' have been examined or more perfectly explained, while 
others of equal importance are being continually added to them." 

2 Leipzic, i88r, 2te Aufl., 1883. 

3 Leipzic, from 1881. * Rev xii. 16. 

5 Wilson, The Egypt of the Past (London, 1881), p. 15. 



250 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

set afloat the theory that the work was the product of 
the seventh century, an essential forgery of the subtle 
priest Hilkiah.i And for more than a century since 
there is scarcely an hypothesis from A to Z that has 
not been inquisitively tried upon it ; but only to leave 
the criticism of to-day as widely divergent as ever in its 
opinions. 

At the beginning of the present century Vater as- 
signed the book to the period of the exile.^ De Wette, 
the several editions of whose Introduction to tJie Old 
Testament are a literary curiosity in the variety of 
views they have from time to time represented, finally, 
like his English predecessor, fixed upon the period of 
King Josiah as the date of its completion and surrepti- 
tious introduction, excepting some minor portions 
thought to be products of the Assyrian period.^ 
Stahelin held that the author of Deuteronomy was the 
same person who worked over the fundamental Elohim 
document — now called the '^ Priests' Code" — extend- 
ing through the first four books of the Pentateuch and 
the Book of Joshua, and that he brought the whole 
Hexateuch to its present state during the reign of 
Saul.* Bleek^ advocated somewhat similar views, but 
maintained that Deuteronomy was composed by a later 
independent editor — not the Jehovist — who closed 
up his labors with this production about the time of 
Manasseh. The Song of Moses (xxxii.) was written, he 
claimed, by some poet of the time of Ahaz or Heze- 
kiah. There was nothing whatever in the book, he 
averred, or in any part of the Pentateuch, to justify the 
theory of its composition as late as the exile. It was, 

1 Parvish, Inquiry into the Jeivisk and Christian Revelation^ p. 324. 

2 Com. uber de7t Pent., vol. iii. pp. 391-728. 
^ Einleit., Achte Ausgabe, p. 323. 

* Stiidien und Kritikcn (1835), p. 462 f.; SpecieUe Einleit. (1862), pp. 22-34. 
" Einleit. (1878), p. 105 f. 



Unity and Genuineness of Deutero7ioiny. 251 

in fact, the whole Hexateuch that was found in the 
temple by the priest Hilkiah. Movers,^ in an exhaus- 
tive monograph, demonstrated the utter groundlessness 
of the supposition that Deuteronomy was a forgery of 
King Josiah's time. Ewald^ was of the opinion that 
the first thirty chapters of the work were written by 
some person in the time of Manasseh ; the remaining 
chapters being a composite, but of not much later date. 
Knobel ^ adopted the theory that the author of Deuter- 
onomy (i.-xxxi. 14) was the one who wrote also a large 
part of Joshua, and brought the whole Hexateuch to 
its present state not earlier than the reign of Josiah. 
It vv^ill be noticed that up to this point the drift 
of sentiment — a drift it should be called — is almost 
altogether in the direction of making Deuteronomy 
the youngest portion of the Pentateuch. It is well 
represented by Bleek, who says : * *' It may be held as 
certain that the Deuteronomic laws, together with 
the addresses they contain, as, indeed, the whole of 
Deuteronomy from the beginning, was written with 
reference to the preceding history of the people and 
the legislation of Moses, and to continue and supple- 
ment it. And it is decidedly false to hold with Vater, 
Von Bohlen, Vatke, and George that Deuteronomy with 
the laws it contains is older than the foregoing books 
with their legislation." And yet, to-day, this camp of 
Bleek and his illustrious compeers — De Wette, Ewald, 
and others — is confronted by a large body of scholars, 
marshaled by the latest editor of Bleek's Introduction^ 
who confidently assert the direct opposite of that 
so confidently asseverated by these acknowledged 
masters of Old Testament criticism. 

^ Zeitschriftfur katholische Theologie, 1834, 1835. 

2 Geschichte d. Volkes Is. (1843, 3te Aufl., 1864), i. 96 f. et passitn. 

3 Commentar- {in Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbtuh zum A. T., 1861), p. 579 f. 
* Ehileit.) ibid. p. 107. 



252 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Reenforced by Graf, Kuenen, Kayser, Wellhausen, 
and many more, the condemned theory of Vater and 
Vatke is now in the ascendant. And though the hypoth- 
esis of the origin of the Deuteronomic legislation a great 
while after the age of Moses is retained, it is made, 
with a slight exception, the introduction to, and not the 
conclusion of, the Pentateuch codes ; while its histor- 
ical portions are relegated to that convenient limbo of 
all otherwise unorganized material, the time of the 
exile. Is it a better scholarship or a sharper critical 
acumen that has brought about so radical and revolu- 
tionary a change of front } We venture to suggest 
that it is the growing influence of the doctrine of 
naturalistic development. The fathers of Old Testa- 
ment criticism held in no mean estimation the sacred 
Scriptures themselves as something to be considered, 
reverently studied, deferred to.^ Their sons, it would 
seem, carried away by the subtle but imperious spirit 
of their time, can see nothing, venerate nothing, save 
their Procustean hypothesis of historical evolution.^ 

Moreover, we find just as little essential harmony 
among the later scholars as among the earlier ; perhaps 

^De Wette's remark (as quoted by Kleinert, Das Deuieroiiomium, p. 3) : "I did not 
begin the criticism. Now that it has begun its dangerous game, it must be played 
through; for only that is good which is perfect of its kind," is reverence itself compared 
with some of Wellhausen's utterances. 

-Rawlinson, in his recent book. The Religions of the Ancient World, arrives at the 
following conclusions (p. 242 f.) : " The historic review which has been here made lends 
no support to the theory that there is a imiform growth and progress of religions from 
fetishism to polytheism, from polytheism to monotheism, from monotheism to positivism, 
as maintained by the followers of Conite. None of the religions here described shows any 
signs of having been developed out of fetishism, unless it be the Shamanism of the 
Etruscans. In most of them the monotheistic idea is most prominent at the first, and 
gradually becomes obscured, and gives way before a polytheistic corruption. In all there 
is one element, at least, which appears to be traditional, namely, sacrifice, for it can scarcely 
have been by the exercise of his reason tliat man came so generally to believe that the 
superior powers, whatever they were, would be pleased by the violent death of one or 
more of their creatures. Altogether, tlie theory to wliich the facts appear on the whole 
to point is the existence of a primitive religion communicated to man from without, 
whereof monotheism and expiatory sacrifice were parts, and the gradual clouding over 
of its primitive revelation everywhere, unless it were among the Hebrews." 



Unity and Gennineness of Deuteronomy. 253 

there is even less of it. They are not agreed on the 
question whether Deuteronomy is a priestly or a pro- 
phetic document ; whether it was forged in the time of 
the early kings or only found then ; whether it is essen- 
tially a unit in its history and laws, or the historical 
portions were framed about the laws by some exilian 
expert in literary appropriations and adaptations ; 
whether its laws, as now extant, came from one hand or 
have been considerably modified in their transmission ; 
whether some of the book is Mosaic, by way of oral 
tradition, or none of it; whether it claims to be from 
the lawgiver of the exodus, or makes no such claim ; 
whether, if it be not what it purports to be, it is to be 
regarded as a gross offence against morality, or one to 
be readily condoned as simply a legal fiction, in the 
sense of Roman jurisprudence and, as we suppose, of 
Roman morals. In such a state of things there is 
clearly, as yet, no logical obligation laid upon us to 
leave the old moorings. There is one thing to be 
dreaded even more than conservatism, and that is 
chaos. We accordingly proceed to inquire whether it 
be not possible on other principles, lying near at hand 
and scientific in their nature, — using that word in its 
truest sense and not as a shibboleth, — to reach results 
before which a candid judgment will readily bow. 

First, then, there are abundant, and abundantly 
satisfactory, grounds for maintaining the literary and 
material unity of the Book of Deuteronomy. It is a 
remarkable example of it in its outward form. One 
might be safely challenged to point to another book 
of the Bible that is more so. The few verses of intro- 
duction are singularly appropriate (i. 1-5) and so 
detailed as it respects dates and places, amounting 
almost to a species of literary triangulation, that it 



254 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

scarcely offers a choice between a theory of honest 
history and egregious, not to say impossible, invention. 
It tells just where the Israelites were when these 
addresses were uttered, fixing the spot, as I have said, 
with little less than geometric exactitude by refer- 
ences to half a dozen other places in the neighborhood. 
It gives the year of the wilderness wanderings, the 
month, and even the day of the month, in noticeable, 
though clearly undesigned, coincidence with other 
important chronological data of the history. The 
crossing of the Jordan was on the tenth of Abib of 
the following year (Josh. iv. 19). The previous month 
had been spent in mourning for the departed chief 
(Deut. xxxiv. 8), Hence ten, full, solemn days are 
left for the delivery of the great discourses of our book. 
The whole is popular, hortatory, retrospective, and 
spiritually elevating, nowhere falling below the key 
struck in the opening announcement : '' These are the 
words which Moses spake unto all Israel." 

The first address (i. 6-iv. 43) is a pertinent review of 
the salient points in the history of the preceding forty 
years, especially in its bearing on ,the present emer- 
gency. It looks and points directly forward to the 
following section, and is logically and indissolubly 
bound to it by continual and emphatic reference under 
the title of ''this law," "these statutes " (i. 5 ; iv. i, 2, 
6, 8, 9, 14, 44), although being itself, in this part, solely 
a resume of well-known historical events. It ends with 
Moses' selection of the three transjordanic refuge 
cities, serving at once as the fulfilment of a promise 
(Ex. xxi. 13) and a pledge of heroic faith that their 
counterparts beyond the flood would also be achieved 
(Deut. xix. I- 1 3). The entire discourse in its present 
form might easily have been spoken in half an hour. 



Unity and Genuineness of Denteronofny. 255 

The second address (iv. 44-xxvi.), being the kernel 
of the book and a little more than three times as long 
as the first, occupies itself mostly with a free recapitu- 
lation, in popular form, of earlier enactments, but with 
such modifications and timely additions as prove the 
hand of the Master.^ 

The third discourse (xxvii.-xxx.) forms as naturally 
the conclusion of the second as the first had formed 
its introduction. There the choice of the refuge cities 
witnessed to the heroic faith of Moses. Here the 
imposing ceremonial appointed for Ebal and Gerizim 
proves his moral earnestness and high prerogative as 
the lawgiver of his people. Seconded now by the 
elders, and again by the priests and Levites, he sets 
forth in words that echo and reecho in every subse- 
quent period of Jewish history the fact that God's laws 
have a reverse, as well as an obverse, side ; that the 
divine covenant was, indeed, a hope and an encour- 
agement, but was also a responsibility and a warning. 

Then, in the following chapter (xxxi.), this grand 
old man, with a touching allusion to his infirmities 
and approaching death, in the presence of the people 
impressively passes over into the hands of his suc- 
cessor his great trust, and at the same time delivers 
with suitable instructions to the priests a copy of what 
he calls "this law." Up to this point what could be 
more obvious than a complete oneness of design and 
representation throughout our book } The beginning 
(i. 3, 5) looks forward to the end ; and the end while 
taking up the very epithets and phrases of the begin- 

^Delitzsch (Curtiss, Levitical Priests, Preface, p. 9) with his usual sagacity has 
noted this fact, and speaks of the "psychological truth" of these "testamentary 
addresses, the freshness and richness of the Egyptian reminiscences, the freedom with 
which the author reproduces historical incidents, laws, and, above all, the Decalogue, 
a freedom which is scarcely conceivable except on the supposition that the speaker was 
the lawgiver himself." 



256 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and StructiLve. 

ning carries on its thought to the only possible climax. 
It is, in short, the unity of nature, of inward logical 
dependence and sequence, and no uniformity forced 
upon it from without. 

To this unity the two following chapters (xxxii., 
xxxiii.) containing Moses' Song and Moses' Blessing 
make certainly no interruption. They rather grow 
out of the circumstances that go before, as the flower 
from its bud. They are strictly Deuteronomic in the 
best sense of the word and fittingly crown the work ; 
and both are documentarily claimed as utterances 
of Moses just prior to his climbing of Nebo on his 
way to the better Canaan. And finally, the closing 
sections of the book (xxxiv.), by some other sympa- 
thetic hand, that tell how Moses died and was buried 
according to the word of the Lord, and how the people 
mourned for him, and what they thought of him, form 
a conclusion for the whole that is as fitting as it is 
moving and beautiful. 

No less than in its literary structure the book of 
Deuteronomy is a unit in its language and style. I 
am aware how uncertain arguments based on the 
mere coloring of language have come to be regarded. 
Undoubtedly too much weight has sometimes been 
attributed to them. But, in the present case, the 
fact is so patent that the scholar has little advantage 
over the unlearned, if he be an observant, reader. 
Still, the testimony of acknowledged masters in bibli- 
cal criticism may serve to strengthen the impression 
which even a cursory reading of the book cannot fail 
to make. 

Of these authorities Bleek deservedly stands among 
the foremost for candor and scholarship. It is with 
a refreshing confidence of tone that he expresses him- 



Unity and Genuineness of D enter onomy. 257 

self on this point :^ "This book in general," he says, 
" offers unmistakably a greater unity of representation 
and of substance than the foregoing. This is true 
especially of the longer addresses, the didactic, as well 
as the legislative portions (i.-iv. 40 ; iv. 44-xxvi. ; 
xxviii.-xxx.). These parts are so much alike in lan- 
guage and all characteristic features that we may 
accept it as certain — and, m.oreover, there is scarcely 
any dispute about it — that they were, generally speak- 
ing, composed in the form in which they now lie 
before us by one and the same writer." 

So Dillmann,^ with no less assurance and directness, 
although writing twenty years later, and from a dif- 
ferent point of view : '^ Deuteronomy is anything 
rather than an original book of the law. On the 
contrary, it is a new didactic recommendation and 
explanation of the old law for the people. Nothing 
is gained by sundering chaps, xii.-xxvi. from the rest 
of the book ; for here, too, there is everywhere mani- 
fest the same spirit, the same language, and the same 
purpose as throughout." 

Delitzsch,^ likewise, while still holding, notwithstand- 
ing the desperate conclusions that have been drawn 
from it, the hypothesis of separate, determinable docu- 
ments in the Pentateuch, considers that "the style 
of Deuteronomy marks it off indubitably as something 
unique and entire in itself." ''Deuteronomy," he 
says, "to its close is cast in one mould. The 
historical connections, conclusions, transitions, state- 
ments have the same coloring as the addresses. The 
addresses are freely reproduced, and the reproducer 
is identical in person with him who composed the 

1 Einleit., p. io6. 

"^ Die Bucher Ex. ii. Levit (in Kurzgefasstes HandbucJi), Vorwort, pp. vii., vlii. 

3 Zeitschriftftlr Kirchliche Wissenschaft, etc. (x88o), p. 504. 



258 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

historical framework and the intermediate historical 
portions. In a similar manner, if in a less degree, 
this unity of coloring extends through Deuteronomy- 
proper, that is, chaps, xii.-xxvi., containing the repeti- 
tion of the law. All the constituent parts of the book, 
not excepting the legislative, are interwoven with 
expressions favorite with the work and peculiar to it." 

And Kleinert, in his well-known monograph on our 
bookji remarks : ** The literary peculiarities of the law 
in Deuteronomy are at the same time peculiarities of 
the [historical] framework ; and precisely the same lit- 
erary individuality that confronts us in chaps, v.-xxvi. 
makes itself felt as well in chaps, i.-iv., as also in 
parts subsequent to chap, xxvii. The same didactic 
tone, there as here, pervades the discourse." 

It is true that Kleinert and the others mentioned 
support no one view of the origin and date of the work. 
It is true that their opinions are not uniform as 
respects its concluding portions. But as against the 
ipse dixit of current theorists, who have come to 
assume it as proved that Deuteronomy is simply 
block-work throughout, where sandstone from the 
exile is found side by side with the granite and gneiss 
of earlier periods, it should be decisive. As well in 
the strikingly logical arrangement of its everywhere 
harmonious material as in the confessed coloring 
of vocabulary and style, the work, in its main features, 
is a demonstrable unity. 

In the second place, it can be confidently maintained 
that, whoever penned the Book of Deuteronomy as 
amanuensis or historiographer, if its own clear and con- 
tinually repeated testimony is to be accepted, Moses 
is responsible both for its substance and general form. 

^ rfas Deiiteroiioviinni, p. 160. 



Unity and Gemdjteness of Deuteronomy. 259 

It does not simply belong to his time ; it actually 
originated with him. It is essentially the product 
of his divinely illuminated mind, is thoroughly 
penetrated by his spirit, and in outward arrange- 
ment still carries throughout the peculiar indi- 
vidual impression he left upon it. 

It would surprise one unacquainted with the subject 
to know how large a portion of the book is put directly 
into the mouth of the lawgiver and is represented 
to be spoken by him. By actual enumeration of 
verses, it makes fifteen sixteenths of the whole 
matter. Out of nearly a thousand verses, there are 
but about sixty that are not in the form of direct 
address, that is, that do not purport to be the word- 
for-word utterances of Moses himself. If the first 
thirty chapters be taken by themselves, the relative 
disproportion is much more marked ; the * average 
of introductory or explanatory material to what 
remains being only about that of a single verse to 
a chapter. All of the rest might be included in 
quotation marks. 

It is by no means assumed that Moses was not also 
the author of a part at least of this subsidiary material. 
But the attention is now invited to the extraordinary 
form in which almost the whole book appears. The 
space required for introducing the speaker, stating the 
circumstances under which his series of addresses 
took place and what occurred after they were over, 
is the least possible, it would seem, for perspicuity. 
The rest comes under the simple rubric : "■ These are 
the words which Moses spake to all Israel" (i. i), or 
something of that nature. 

The name of the lawgiver is found thirty-seven times 
in the book, and in the great majority of cases it is 



26o TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Striicttn'e. 



introduced with the special purpose of connecting him 
authoritatively with its matter. The strictly legisla- 
tive portion (xii.-xxvi.) shares this peculiarity equally 
with the historical ; the first person being used with- 
out exception. Omitting the last chapter, describ- 
ing what took place after Moses relinquished his 
leadership, there are less than half a dozen exceptions 
to this uniform classification of the contents. Every- 
thing else is stamped and sealed, as it were, by such 
words as, "Moses spoke," "Moses commanded," "The 
Lord said to Moses." 

It is a remarkable circumstance and one which 
cannot be overlooked or evaded in any worthy dis- 
cussion of the genuineness of Deuteronomy. If the 
person to whom we are indebted for the book as we 
now have it, whoever he may have been, had delib- 
erately set out to place beyond all dispute the question 
of Mosaic responsibility for its contents, it would be 
hard to say how he could have stated it more carefully 
or wisely. 

This is not all. Not only is Moses made responsible 
for the substance of the book of Deuteronomy, he is 
equally so for its literary construction and expression. 
It is declared that he wrote it (xxxi. 9, 24), and wrote 
it " to the end " — an addition of no slight impor- 
tance. It is true that the term employed is "this 
law," "this book of the law." Still, there ought to 
be no uncertainty on that account, considering the 
form in which the work is cast, its own usage as it 
respects this very term, and the admitted unity of 
language and style throughout. The whole book up 
to this point is meant. 

Moreover, the so-called " Song of Moses " (xxxii.) 
cannot be excluded. Of this, too, it is said that Moses 



Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 261 

wrote it at God's command, and taught it to the chil- 
dren of Israel (xxxi. 22). Of the blessing with which 
it is declared that " Moses the man of God blessed the 
children of Israel before his death," it is nowhere 
specifically announced, indeed, that he also composed 
it and left it in a written form. The circumstances, 
however, leave scarcely any other inference open. He 
was not a man to recite another's composition on such 
an occasion. And if he thought it needful perma- 
nently to shape and fix the foregoing historical and 
legislative records, and was concerned not to leave 
them to the uncertainties of oral tradition, he would 
not think it less needful to do it with this series of 
predictions, whose fine shading of thought might be 
still more easily obscured and lost. 

In saying now, however, that we have the authority 
of Deuteronomy that Moses composed and wrote 
Deuteronomy, we do not say, necessarily, that it 
teaches that it is actually his autograph ; it may or 
may not be that. The Epistles ascribed to Paul are 
no less truly his, and were no less certainly written 
by him, because his own hand was not mechanically 
employed on many of them. It is simply meant that 
the Book of Deuteronomy makes the claim that it -is 
Mosaic in its present literary plan and structure ; but 
t/iis is meant. And it is more, and is clearly intended 
to be more, than saying that the book is substantially 
Mosaic, gets its authority, under God, from Moses. 
It means that it was written under his eye, and 
received his approval as correctly reporting his utter- 
ances, which make up almost the whole of it. 

It is not without significance that after authori- 
tatively connecting the lawgiver so many times by 
name with the general contents of the work, and then 



262 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stritctiwe. 

ascribing to him the writing of it to the end, it is 
further stated that the book thus completed was by 
him formally committed to the custody of the Levites 
for preservation beside the ark (xxxi. 24 f.). 

How in the face of all this circumstantial detail, 
whose truthfulness as a whole or in any particular 
there is not the slightest historical ground for ques- 
tioning, one can still say that Deuteronomy makes no 
claim to be the work of Moses, it is not easy to under- 
stand. Or, admitting that such a claim is made, and 
so made, as well by implication as direct statement, 
over and over, in every part, conspicuously, emphati- 
cally, one can hold that it is simply for effect, and 
was never intended to represent a fact, is quite as 
inexplicable. 

Why, it may be asked, if this were the case, is there 
nowhere discoverable in earlier or later Jewish history 
the shadow of a tradition that language is here used 
with so unheard-of a license t Is it credible that the 
whole Jewish race from Moses to Jesus Christ can have 
conspired to pose before the world in so false a charac- 
ter, and that too in the face of a statute for which 
mankind is confessedly their debtor : " Thou shalt not 
bear false witness against thy neighbor " t Is it likely 
that any small portion of it colluded to hoodwink the 
rest, and succeeded in doing it so far as to make them 
believe that they themselves had been eyewitnesses of 
various great events during a long period of years of 
which they were as ignorant as the man in the moon .? 
"We saw," says the speaker, — you as well as I, — 
'' the sons of the Anakim " (i, 28). " In the wilderness 
thou didst see how the Lord did bare thee as a man 
doth bear his son" (i. 31). "And I instructed Joshua 
at that time " [mark ! Joshua, the man who succeeded 



Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 263 

Moses], "■ saying, Thine eyes have seen all that the 
Lord did to these two kings " (iii. 21). Again, alluding 
to specific circumstances : " Your eyes have seen all 
that the Lord did because of Baal-Peor " (iv. 3 ; cf. 
Num. XXV. 3). 

And not only does the writer assume and affirm, but 
he denies the opposite : " I speak not to your children, 
who have not known and who have not seen the chas- 
tisement of the Lord your God, his greatness, his 
mighty hand, and his outstretched arm " (xi. 2). And 
near the end of the book, as well (xxix. 3-5) : "Ye have 
seen all that the Lord did before your eyes, . . . the 
great temptations, . . . the signs, and those great 
miracles. . . . And I have led you forty years in the 
wilderness." Four times, and in each of the three 
leading sections (ii. 7 ; viiii. 4 ; xxix. 4), the length of 
time spent by Israel in the eventful journey from 
Egypt is alluded to.^ 

If this be invention, it matters not in what king's 
reign or under what prophetic or priestly sanction it 
was invented ; its impudence and dishonesty are only 
equaled by the stupidity of the people that did not 
discover that it was so, or discovering and knowing it 
have never made a sign that they accepted it otherwise 
than as literal fact. 

It is claimed, however, that there are indubitable 
marks of a later origin stamped on the book itself — 
anachronisms, contradictions, incidental remarks, geo- 
graphical, ethnographical, or explanatory — that, what- 
ever else may appear to favor a Mosaic origin, point 
to a period long subsequent to his day for its compo- 

^ It is true that elsewhere a whole generation is said to have fallen in the wilderness 
(cf. Num. xxvi. 64, 65). It was, however, only the males over twenty years of age who 
had been put under the ban (Num. i. 3, 45, 49) . The Levites had been exempt as well as 
the women and youth. So that the congregation was still identical with that which left 
Egypt. 



264 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnicture. 

sition ; at least, for the form in which it now appears. 
It may be well to consider here these objections, as 
far as they relate to the historical portions of Deuter- 
onomy, before adducing additional reasons in support 
of Mosaic authorship. Still, let it be understood that 
it is not regarded as a matter of superlative importance. 
The fly on the elephant's back does not detract from 
the majesty of the elephant. 

It may be acknowledged at the outset, without yield- 
ing an iota as it concerns the main point at issue, that 
our book has some scraps of supplementary material ; as, 
for example, to mention the principal one, the twelve 
verses of the closing chapter. And here and there a 
remark is thrown in, possibly efditorial, or of the nature 
of what might originally have been a gloss, which, 
because there was no other place to put it, has found 
its way into the text. But every such case bears 
unmistakable witness to itself. There is just as little 
danger, in our book, of confounding this subsidiary 
matter with the body of the work as there would be if 
it appeared in another character, or was printed in a 
different color. As already noticed, fifteen sixteenths 
of Deuteronomy is in the form of direct address ; the 
name of the speaker being in every instance given and 
being in every instance the same. 

To cite these exceptions, therefore, as evidence that 
a fictitious writer of a later day has unwittingly 
betrayed himself, is to make a simpleton of the writer. 
Either he meant to conceal his identity, or he did not. 
If he did, and carelessly dropped into this method of 
speaking, it was an example of imbecility wholly 
unworthy of the author of a book like this. If he did 
not mean to conceal his identity, but to have it under- 
stood that he was some writer subsequent to Moses, 



Ufiity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 265 

then he just as certainly meant to have it understood 
that only for the occasional remarks appearing as such 
to the dullest intellect is he responsible, and that they 
are in no sense or degree intended to touch the ques- 
tion of the proper authorship of the book, which in 
more than a score of cases is directly imputed to 
Moses. 

This supplementary matter, however, it is to be care- 
fully noticed, insignificant as it is in amount, — making 
up, if we omit the concluding sections, but two per 
cent, of the whole, — is far from being of one character. 
The most of it is in the form of introductory state- 
ments or historical reminiscences, quite pertinent to 
the context, and differing from it only in the one 
circumstance that it is expressed in the third person 
instead of the first. If it did not originate with Moses, 
there is no intimation or proof that it did not. The 
mere fact that he is represented as one spoken of, 
instead of speaking, — the analogy of other biblical 
books being the standard, — is wholly unimportant. 
What is actually given out as spoken by Moses m 
propria persona could not be so represented without 
some such narrative portions. It is not the handle of 
the knife that cuts ; but the handle is no unnecessary 
means in the process. 

Whether, therefore, Moses is to be directly charge- 
able with such prefatory remarks as '' These are the 
words which Moses spake (i. i f.) ; '* This is the law 
which Moses set before the children of Israel " (iv. 44) ; 
" Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them " 
(v. i), and some other like things, is only of the slight- 
est consequence in its bearing on the question of the 
genuineness of Deuteronomy. He surely may have 
been the author of them for all that anybody knows 



266 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure, 

to the contrary. Inherent improbability arising from 
their contents and form there is none. But when 
these parts are subtracted from the one sixteenth 
of the book not included in addresses positively 
ascribed to Moses, the residuum is scarcely worth 
disputing about. It cannot, as already intimated, fairly 
be made a ground of dispute, if it be agreed that it 
is of the nature of later editorial additions but only 
as it is understood to represent the writer of the 
book. And then we have the question to settle, Is 
it of such a character as to misrepresent a Moses of 
the exodus.!^ 

In the first chapter, for example, the remark in verse 
2, "There are eleven days' journey from Horeb by way 
of Mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea " ; and in verse ii, 
" The Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand 
times as many as ye are, and bless you as he hath 
promised you," are obviously parenthetical. The latter 
may have been uttered by the author of the work ; the 
former is somewhat less likely to have been. Still, 
even such a remark would not have been without its 
force on his lips, as showing that a journey of eleven 
days, about one hundred and sixty-five miles, had been 
prolonged on account of Israel's intractableness, to one 
of many toilsome years. But if any one is disposed 
to object to such an explanation as forced, let it pass. 
There is really too little involved to require a discus- 
sion. Let it be supposed — it is as fair a supposition 
as any other — that some later hand, some editor, even 
as late a one as Ezra, made the addition, as he would 
no doubt feel that he had a perfect right to do ; it 
would not prove the Book of Deuteronomy exilian ; 
it would not cast so much as a shadow on its essential 
authority or genuineness. 



Ufiity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 267 

Again, at ii. 10-12 (cf. vs. 29) the narrative is simi- 
larly interrupted by a remark concerning the peoples 
who had dwelt in Moab before Lot obtained possession, 
and in vs. 20-23 of those who had previously occupied 
the land of the Ammonites. These passages, also, may 
be editorial notes. Their form encourages such an 
hypothesis. They are quite unique, and even in our 
English version are put in parenthesis. In that case 
they offer direct evidence that the work as a whole has, 
and by even the cursory reader is assumed to have, a 
point of view and a course of thought that is pecu- 
liarly its own. In other words, as thus regarded, they 
could not be used as marks for determining the age of 
the work in which they are found, since they form no 
real part of it. 

But there is no imperative necessity for holding 
them to be later additions.^ Very late additions, it is 
clear, they cannot be ; they imply too exact a geograph- 
ical knowledge, and the other circumstances are too 
detailed. Besides, they have an immediate bearing on 
the thought of the context. If God had driven out 
many and strong nations before the descendants of 
Lot, and given them now a permanent possession 
which was not to be disturbed, would he do less for the 
descendants of Abraham and Jacob t Whoever wrote 
these verses had the intention of making the most of 
a fact encouraging to the Israelites on the eve of the 
conquest. Nothing, consequently, could be in closer 

1 The perfects in the last part of verse 12 may easily enough be prophetic perfects, and 
there is no inappropriateness in the way of speaking in verse 22 of the children of Esau 
in Moses' time as dwelling in Seir, " unto this day." Sime offers another explanation, 
referring the " land of his possession " to the conquests that had already been made east 
of the Jordan. " The context proves the accuracy of this rendering. * Behold,' it is said 
a few lines afterwards (Deut. ii. 24) , ' I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, 
king of Heshbon, and his land, begin, possess.' The beginning of the conquest is the 
point insisted on by the writer of Deuteronomy, not its completion, of which he could 
have known nothing." — The Kingdom 0/ All Israel^ p. 438, 



268 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structtcre. 

harmony with the spirit of our book. Then, further, it 
is not to be forgotten that if Moses had wished to 
introduce such incidental matter, he was shut up to 
this method of doing it. Footnotes were out of the 
question. Other ancient writers, and those not so 
ancient as he, Hke Herodotus, have written in the 
same way.^ 

The note in iii. 9, " Hermon the Sidonians call 
Sirion, and the Amorites call it Shenir," has not the 
same clear motive underlying it and may be said to be 
logically unnecessary to the thought of the context. 
But when the importance of this mountain as a land- 
mark in Palestine is considered, such a specification of 
its several names cannot be regarded as altogether 
superfluous. The question how Moses could have been 
informed of the facts here stated has been mooted. 
Since it has come to light, however, that both of the 
foreign designations of Hermon were well known in 
the cognate Assyrian tongue,^ it can no longer be 
regarded as serious. It is also worthy of attention 
that both of these alternative names for the mountain 
appear in the later Hebrew literature (Ps. xxix. 6 ; 
Ezek. xxvii. 5 ; Cant. iv. 8 ; i Chron. v. 23). 

So, still further, in the immediate context (vs. 11), 
what is said of Og's bedstead or sarcophagus ; and, 
again, of the son of Manasseh (vs. 14), that he called 
the land he had obtained possession of by his own 
name "unto this day," one may explain as he will, the 
coloring of the passages is most emphatically not such 

1 In chap. cxxv. book i (see Rawlinson's Herod, vol. i. p. 248 f.), for example, a 
case quite similar to ours is found, where a narrative concerning Cyrus is broken in upon 
by a description of the different tribes that made up the Persian nation. " Now the 
Persian nation is made up of many tribes. Those which Cyrus assembled and persuaded 
to revolt from the Medcs were the principal ones on which all the others depended. 
These are the Pasargadae, the Maraphians, and the Maspians, of whom the Pasargadac 
are the noblest." 

2 Schrader, Keilitischri/tcn, etc. p. 158 f. 



Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 26(^ 

as might have been expected in a work written as late 
as the seventh century B.C. A critic must be hard 
pushed to take refuge in such a position. 

It has, indeed, been objected that there would have 
been no occasion for calling the attention of Moses' 
contemporaries to such particulars concerning the land 
of Bashan, its king of gigantic stature, and the like. 
But that is not the point. It was not enough that they 
already knew these things. Deuteronomy contains, it 
is to be observed, an important addition beyond the 
account in Numbers (xxxii. 41). It cites the circum- 
stance in order to draw an important lesson from it, 
as in the case just considered. The sixty so-called 
cities that had been captured were no easy prey for 
any marauding bands ; they were fortified towns (see 
vs. 4, 5), ''fenced with high walls, gates, and bars." ^ 
The victories had been signal ones. Should not the 
memory of what God had then wrought on their behalf 
inspire hope now, when they confronted the problem 
of conquering a home for themselves beyond the river } 
Such an allusion, therefore, is no inadvertence. It 
precisely represents and voices the main purpose of 
the book. 

Nor is there anything in the concluding words " unto 
this day " that necessitates a different conclusion. It 
means no more than "so far," ''until now." Some 
months, at least, had elapsed since these heroic tasks 
had been so thoroughly accomplished by the son of 

' In view of what modern research has brought to Hght concerning these giant cities of 
Bashan, we are not only not surprised at such a reminiscence from the lips of Moses, but 
rather that he passes over the matter with only a slight reminiscence. Cf. Porter, Five 
Years in Damascus (London, 1855) ; Giant Cities of Bashan atid Syria's Holy 
Places (London, i860); Burton and Drake, Unexplored Syria (London, 1872). The 
difficulty that in Deuteronomy, Jair alone is mentioned as the conqueror and possessor of 
Bashan, while in Numbers Nobah is made to share it with him, and the apparent dis- 
crepancy in the number of cities, are explained, among other things, by Kurtz, History 
of the Old Covenant, iii. 467. 



270 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Manasseh ; and that was time enough to justify this 
famihar phrase. It is similarly used by contempora- 
neous writers. " Ye have not left your brethren many 
days, unto this day," said Joshua to the two tribes and 
a half-tribe that had assisted their brethren in their 
earlier military occupation of Canaan (Josh. xxii. 3). 
And subsequently in reviewing his own life, this 
second great captain of Israel says to the people 
whom he had so often led to victory : " But you, no 
man hath been able to stand before you unto this day" 
(Josh, xxiii. 9). There is no room for uncertainty in 
these passages as to the length of time meant to be 
covered by the words " unto this day." It is illogical, 
consequently, to base upon them as used in Deuter- 
onomy an argument for the post-Mosaic origin of the 
book, even supposing them to be an original and 
constituent part of it. 

Again, it is claimed that the writer of Deuteronomy 
betrays himself as one impersonating Moses by his 
peculiar use of the Hebrew words, rendered " beyond 
Jordan," showing that he writes from the point of view 
of Palestine proper, and not of the plains of Moab. We 
submit that it is not the writer of Deuteronomy who 
betrays himself, but the objector, who puts a quibble in 
the place of a reason. This expression occurs ten times 
in our book (i. 1,5 ; iii. 8, 20, 25 ; iv. 41, 46, 47, 49 ; 
xi. 30). There is not one case among them that with- 
out positive violence and a false exegesis will permit 
the inference that has been drawn from it. 

The words mean, taken by themselves, " at the cross- 
ing of the Jordan." Used alone they point neither to 
the east nor the west side. Just what is meant in any 
given instance is a matter which can be determined 
only by the context. The writer of this book, in fact, 



Unity and Gcmiifiencss of Deitteronomy. 271 

employs the words in the very same passage, intelli- 
gibly and with clear intention, to mean now the east, 
and again the west, side of the Jordan (iii. 8, 20). Con- 
scious of the ambiguity of the phrase, he uses it in no 
single case where misunderstanding might arise that 
he has not himself guarded against it. He says, '' on 
this side Jordan in the plain over against the Red 
Sea" ; or, ''on this side Jordan in the land of Moab " ; 
or, ''toward the sunrising " ; or, "by the way where the 
sun goeth down." Every passage of the ten is thus 
rigorously insured against the possibility of error by 
means of an added explanation, excepting one (iii. 20), 
which does not need it. How absurd, in these circum- 
stances, the ado that has been made, and continues to 
be made, over these words by critics, learned and 
unlearned, who seem never to have thoroughly exam- 
ined the connection in which they stand. 

Once more, the thread of direct address which 
prevails in the book is singularly dropped in the tenth 
chapter (vs. 6, 7). Moses is represented as discoursing 
of what took place at Sinai. The first tables of the 
law had been broken, the second prepared, and the ten 
commandments written upon them by the finger of 
God. "And I turned about," he says, "and came 
down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark 
which I had made ; and there they are, as the Lord 
commanded me." Upon this follow two verses in the 
narrative form, relating to certain journeys of the 
Israelites in the wilderness and Aaron's death, — events 
that occurred many years later, the latter nearly forty 
years afterward, — from which the speaker just as sud- 
denly goes back to the first person again and to what 
happened at Sinai. 

The thought is as closely connected in verses five 



2/2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

and eight as though there had been no diversion. It 
looks like what would be called in geology a fault, a 
displacement of material. Still, it may not be so. 
Reasons of more or less pertinence have been given 
why Moses himself might have intentionally digressed 
in this way. For our purpose it is enough to notice 
that the digression does not reach beyond the Mosaic 
age. There is nothing in it to suggest the tampering 
of a later hand. If it be out of place, it is not out of 
character. If it be a fragment, it is to all appearance 
a fragment of Deuteronomy and bears the marks of 
the period of the exodus.^ 

Finally, the so-called *' Blessing of Moses" (xxxiii. 
1-29), although introduced as from him, as we have 
already noticed, is denied to be his, because Moses, it 
is said, would never have styled himself the '' man of 
God," as the title designates him. This, however, is 
not so certain. He surely might have done so without 
presumption. It is simply the name of an office, and 
the very same that elsewhere in this book Moses claims 
for himself, when he says : " A prophet shall the Lord 
your God raise up unto you like to me " (xviii. 15). 

Still, suppose that Moses did not write the title of 
the poem, it would not follow that the poem is not his, 
as somebody in the ancient time — everybody, as far as 
we know — -affirms that it is. There is nothing that 
appears from the simple reading of it that should lead 
an unbiased mind to a contrary conclusion. And 
Volck, one of the editors of the later editions of 
Gesenius's Hebrezv Lexicon, who has written an 
exhaustive and masterly monograph of nearly two 

^ The list of places to and from which the journeyings are here said to have been made 
are, in general, the same as those found in Numbers (xxxiii. 30-33) ; but they dilTer some- 
wliat in tlieir spelling and are given In a different order. It is not to be forgotten, how- 
ever, that the Israelites traversed the same ground more than once and in dilTerent 
directions. 



Unity and Gemcineness of Deuteronomy. 273 

hundred octavo pages on its less than thirty verses, 
reaches the conclusion that there is nothing in the 
poem itself to justify the calling in question the 
correctness of its title. ^ 

These, now, are the anachronisms, contradictions, 
geographical and ethnographical remarks which, as far 
as the historical portions of Deuteronomy are con- 
cerned, have been so much magnified by recent critics 
as furnishing positive evidence of the post-Mosaic 
origin of the book. I am not aware that there are 
others of any significance. How far from overpowering 
in quantity do they appear beside the thirty chapters 
of solid matter in the midst of which they stand ! And 
in quality they are even more disappointing. 

They are admitted to be exceptions to the ruling 
form of the book ; but they do not give the response 
to adequate tests which they have been said to give and 
been counted on to give. We fail to find in one of 
them any indications, open or covert, that the book of 
which they form a part is the product of Hezekiah's 
reforms or Hilkiah's finesse. Most of them are but 
loosely attached to the text at best. If they were 
taken bodily out of it, the book would be still left 
complete in all its essential features. Let them be 
looked upon either as instances where the writer forgot 
himself and unconsciously assumed his real character, 
— a supposition totally out of harmony with their 
nature, — or as later editorial supplements and super- 
fluities, there is nothing in either case to justify the 
enormous conclusions that have been drawn from them. 
They are quite of the same stock as the body of the 
book. The writer or writers of them move in the same 
circle of ideas that rule throughout, wear the rough 

1 Der Segen Moses Uiitersiccht und Ausgelegt. Cf. pp. 154-160. 



2/4 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

garments of the Israelitish wanderers, speak the 
dialect of the recent slaves of Egypt. 

Whatever, in short, any supposed later writer or 
compiler may be thought to have overlooked in the 
form of the book to make it appear outwardly other 
than Mosaic gives no shred of encouragement to the 
theory that it belongs to a later age, after Joshua, after 
Samuel, after David, after the earthquake throes that 
divided the kingdom, after the reforms of an Asa or 
the pestilential wickedness of an Ahaz or a Manasseh. 
The positive evidence, as far as any exists, points 
uniformly in one direction ; and the negative evidence, 
if so it may be called, does not disprove, but con- 
firms, it. 

Suppose the book were a composition of the royal 
period, as it has become largely the mode to affirm, or 
a mosaic out of different periods, none of them as early 
as David, and that the ecclesiastical enthusiast who 
wrote it or edited it actually sometimes forgot his role, 
as it has been asserted the Deuteronomist has done. 
Would he have left the traces of it that we find in our 
work 1 What strange threads of history rather, what 
bits of experience unknown to the beginnings of 
national life, what reminiscences of sacred places, what 
possible and every way probable coloring of sentiment, 
like that which makes the Psalter a mirror of Israel's 
inner being, might have, been confidently expected in 
place of the limited range and uniform tenor of the 
matter we actually find .-^ ^ 

^ " Vast changes took place in Israel during the eight centuries which preceded the 
supposed forgery. A fugitive host of foemen entered and conquered Palestine, divided 
the country among them, and then for four centuries fought for existence as separate 
warring tribes. From being a republic, Israel became a limited monarchy. King-; took 
the place of judges, and one of them made the Hebrew State the first empire of his age. 
Under another, the kingdom so painfully raised to greatness was split in two, weakened 
by civil strife, and preyed on by powerful neighbors. At last the larger of the two frag- 



Unity and Genuineness of Deuterojiomy. 275 

Let us select, for example, a single prominent 
feature of Deuteronomy. If it have one, it is the 
emphasis it lays on the place of worship for Israel — 
that it is to be one, the one which the Lord their God 
should choose for them. Nearly twenty times within 
the space of a few chapters this matter is insisted on, 
without deviation in form or relaxation from its iron 
firmness of command. " Unto the place which the 
Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to 
put his name there, unto his habitation shall ye seek, 
and thither shalt thou come " (xii. 5). 

The cultus of God was to be confined to a central 
shrine. The idolatrous and deadly worship on the 
"heights" was to be relentlessly rooted out. The 
writer, it is claimed now, had his eye on Jerusalem. 
He must have had, if he were Hilkiah or any protege 
of Hezekiah. Not only was his eye upon it, but his 
heart was full of it, and a leading purpose of his work 
was to discourage worship at any other point ; nay, to 
brand it as a positive transgression of a reiterated law 
of Jehovah by the mouth of his greatest legislator. 
And yet he never gets beyond this form of words : 
" unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose 
out of all your tribes." He uses it with the history of 
the Israelitish cultus for more than half a millennium 
before him. 

He knew of the sad degeneracy of the times next 
succeeding Joshua ; of the falseness of Eli's anointed 
sons ; of Samuel's heroic breasting of an evil tide ; the 

ments, after losing towns and provinces to Damascus, Moab, and Ammon, was itself 
repeatedly wasted, and then overwhelmed by the power of Assyria. Literature was cul- 
tivated among the Hebrews during these eight centuries. Changes, very striking to the 
imagination, took place in their worship and in their art of war. But of all these things 
there is not one word or one hint in Deuteronomy. If it be a true history, it could not 
contain references to them. If it be a forgery, no man could have written it without in 
some way or another showing his hand." — Sime, ibid. pp. 415, 416. 



2'j() The Pentatetich : Its Origin and Structure. 

full story of the ark in its wanderings from Gilgal to 
Shiloh and from Shiloh to Kirjath-jearim, its honors 
and its neglect, until David brought it, with psalms of 
rejoicing, to its present place on Mount Zion. He 
knew of the temple of Solomon and its memorable 
dedication in the presence of a united and happy 
people. He knew — the writer of a Deuteronomy of 
the seventh century must have known — of the civil 
conflicts that succeeded Solomon's reign ; of the divisive 
efforts of a Jeroboam the son of Nebat ; of the high- 
handed idolatry at Bethel and Beersheba ; of the luxu- 
rious Samaria of Jereboam H. ; of Asa's reforms, and 
Elijah's challenge to Baal's priests, and Jezebel's 
cruelty, and the heathenish Syrian altar of Ahaz in the 
temple court. And knowing it, we can judge from the 
spirit that rules in his work what he thought about it 
all — how keenly sensitive it made him to the desperate 
woes of his countrymen and the dishonor to his God. 
And still it is claimed that he wrote so rei3eatedly and 
so tamely : '' unto the place which the Lord your God 
shall choose out of all your tribes . . . shall ye seek." 
It is neither the sentiment nor the form of sentiment 
that we might have expected in view of such a history. 
It is quite too general and too lax. The evil Jeroboam 
might have claimed it as meaning his altar, as well as 
the good Jehosaphat. It is conceived in far too calm 
and too colorless a spirit. It implies a unity where 
there is already hot dissension and every sign of wild 
anarchy for the time to come. It is psychologically 
impossible, in short, that a man in the midst of the 
antagonisms of the later day, given a priest or prophet 
of whatever unparalleled nerve or adroitness, could 
have expressed himself in the manner the writer of 
Deuteronomy has done on the subject of divine 
worship. 



Unity and Genuineness of DeiUeronomy. 277 

Moreover, let it be remembered that, according to 
the theory, the book is to no slight extent an invention. 
The writer was bound to no method, was at liberty to 
manipulate material or manufacture it to suit his pur- 
pose. Why, then, is there nowhere a hint of such a 
place as Jerusalem, much less of its already historic 
sanctuary.? His chief object, it is alleged, was to give 
the temple cultus the advantage of the oldest and the 
highest authority. How is it conceivable, in these cir- 
cumstances, that he should not only use so equivocal 
an expression as "the place which the Lord your God 
shall choose," but keep the precise place he meant, the 
cynosure of mind and heart, so completely out of view } 

More than this, his representations are misleading, 
on any such hypothesis, and Jerusalem is the last place 
that would be thought of. One would rather think of 
Jericho, where the first great victory in the promised 
land was won ; or Mount Nebo, where the "■ man of 
God " was buried, distant and inaccessible though it 
might have been regarded at any time after the division 
of Canaan ; above all, of Mounts Ebal and Gerizim, 
now within the domain of the dreaded Sargon, who had 
captured Samaria. These mountains occupied the 
geographical centre of the land. The region had long 
before been honored in patriarchal, as it has long since 
in Christian, story. It is also represented as about to 
be the scene of a public celebration and attestation of 
this very Deuteronomic code, otherwise unexampled in 
the annals of the people. I submit that, if the writer 
of this so-called Fifth Book of Moses had Mount Zion 
in his secret thought, he would never have so hallowed 
and glorified the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, and 
made them as conspicuous in his work as they are in 
the landscape of the Holy Land. It would prove a 



278 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

clumsiness of literary execution with which so deft 
a hand cannot be charged. 

In this connection, too, attention should be called to 
another quite as serious oversight of our critics in their 
hunt for evidence of the late origin of Deuteronomy. 
It is the freshness and the peculiar character of its 
Egyptian reminiscences, together with the entire 
absence of allusion, near or remote, to the Assyrian 
power. It might, indeed, be said to be designed — the 
chosen covering under which a clever hand wrought to 
accomplish the highest moral ends. But if it be a 
covering, it is one which a really clever hand would 
not at all have needed and which a devout hand would 
never have chosen or allowed. It is obvious here, too, 
that there are psychological grounds, reasons existing in 
the nature of things, making the authorship of such a 
work after the recovery of Assyria (b.c. 900) and the 
accession of Shalmaneser II. (b.c. 858) wholly incom- 
prehensible. 

If it be difficult to conceive of a writer under the 
shadow of the temple, and for the sake of it, ignoring 
Jerusalem while making prominent Ebal and its altar, 
it is no less so to think of one making everything of 
Egypt, when, were he a real son of his time, in sym- 
pathy with what Hebrew poets and seers are saying, he 
should be making everything of Assyria ; at least, 
should find it impossible to be so completely oblivious 
of the empire before which Micah saw Zion " ploughed 
as a field," Jerusalem ''become heaps," and the "moun- 
tain of the house as the heights of the wood" (iii. 12). 

Egypt was politically a nonentity in the period 
between the middle of the tenth and the close of the 
eighth century B.C. Sunk in corruptions, it fell an easy 
prey to the hordes of the Ethiopian conqueror Shabak, 



Unity and GemLineness of Deuteronomy. 279 

the So of the bibhcal books (2 Kings xix. 9 ; cf. Isa. 
xxxvii. 9). Under Psammetichus L, in the seventh 
century (b.c. 664), it reached again a moderate j^itch of 
commercial prosperity, but never regained its former 
mihtary strength. In fact, after the time of Rehoboam 
the successor of Solomon, when Shishak successfully 
besieged Jerusalem (i Kings xiv. 25), the kingdoms of 
Judah and Israel had as little to hope as to fear from 
the once formidable neighbor of the south. Sentinels 
on their watchtowers were facing in quite another 
direction. 

It is the Egypt of Sethos I., Rameses I. and II., and 
of Menephthes that has left its indelible impression on 
the Pentateuch. The nearly twoscore references to it 
by name in the Book of Deuteronomy alone are of un- 
mistakable significance. In eleven only of the thirty- 
four chapters do we fail to find them. They abound 
equally in every part — laws as well as history. More 
than half the references are to Israel's deliverance and 
the signal manner of it. The next largest number are 
to the wonders wrought upon Pharaoh. Others are to 
the fact of the hard servitude, the homelessness, and 
the oppression of Israel. Four make mention of what 
kind of a land Egypt had been found, its evil diseases, 
and its methods of agriculture. 

Could anything, for example, be more true to nature 
or more picturesque than this : '' For the land of which 
thou goest to take possession is not like the land of 
Egypt, whence ye are come out, where thou sowed st thy 
seed, and wateredst it with thy foot as a garden of 
herbs" (xi. 10) .-* Two passages make tender allusion 
to the circumstances that attended the going of Jacob 
into Egypt, and two contain terrifying ones to a possible 
future thraldom there. How abundant this testimony, 



28o The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure . 

and how inexplicable on the supposition that our book 
was written at any time between the reign of Jeroboam, 
the son of Nebat, and the reforms of King Josiah ? 
Moreover, it is of one uniform character. Selected out, 
a shred here and a shred there, from the entire web, 
there is no dissimilarity of color or texture. It is a 
Shemitic fabric, woven thick with threads of Egyptian 
memories. 

Suppose that this book, now, or any considerable part 
of it, had been written at the time when Hezekiah 
took away the high places with their altars and com- 
manded that worship should be paid at one altar (2 
Chron. xxxii. 12), or when the more marked reforms 
that synchronize with the beginning of Jeremiah's 
prophecies were begun. Not only would such inci- 
dental references to Egypt, in their numerousness and 
in their coloring of bygone days, surprise and baffle 
us, but, as we have said, not less the seeming utter 
obliviousness of the empire of the North. The monu- 
ments fully confirm what the biblical books had long 
ago more than led us to infer, that for the children 
of Israel in Palestine, at least after the beginning of 
the tenth century, the antagonistic world-empire lay 
no longer on the Nile, but on the Tigris and the 
Euphrates. 

There is scarcely a king from Ahab down who did 
not find himself harassed with problems that concerned 
Assyria or its no less mighty successor at Babylon. 
Whatever reforms of the cultus or the civil polity were 
called for in all this period we may be sure got some- 
what of their motive from the hope that thus a suc- 
cessful barrier might be raised against this dreaded 
despotism. Jehu's ambassadors bearing gifts figure 
on the marble obelisks of Shalmanezer (n.c. 810-781). 



Unity and Gcjinineness of Deuteronomy. 281 

Uzziah was punished and fined by Tiglath Pileser II. 
(B.C. 723) for his temerity in joining the Syrians against 
him. Ahaz, at first an ally, afterward became an 
obsequious slave of the same power. 

Samaria was reduced and its king and people led 
away to exile (b.c. 722). Hezekiah, like his father, paid 
the hated tax which purchased him immunity from 
worse inflictions. Next to the escape from Egypt 
there was, perhaps, no event that made a deeper 
impression on the Hebrew mind and literature than 
the precipitous retreat of Sennacherib, in this same 
king's reign, mysteriously smitten by the Providence 
he had defied. So, too, Esar-haddon (e.g. 670), Assurb- 
anipal (b.c. 6^2>)y and Esar-haddon IL, whose reigns 
reach to the utmost limit of the period that by the 
wildest criticism could be assigned to the essential 
portions of Deuteronomy, were all of them more or less 
concerned with the now broken and scattered Israel 
and the ever-waning political fortunes of Judah and 
Jerusalem. In the meantime Tyre and Sidon, Phoe- 
nicia, Philistia, and Edom had been successively sub- 
jugated, the whole of the Nile region overrun ; and the 
lordly potentate of the North added to his other titles, 
"king of the kings of Egypt and Cush." 

What vestige of all this do we find in Deuteronomy .? 
What one word of Assyria and its influence to offset 
the nearly forty references to the Egypt of Joseph and 
Moses and the exodus .? Judging from the confidence 
with which our book is assigned to this or that era of 
reform among the kings of the Assyrian period, one 
might reasonably expect some definite evidence that it 
knew of these mighty monarchs and their overwhelming 
influence on the people of Palestine and adjacent lands 
— that the Assyria of the prophets and historical books 



282 The Pefttateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

really came into its field of vision. There is no such 
evidence. 

There is a single allusion, at the close of the Deuter- 
onomic legislation (Deut. xxvi. 5), to the Shemitic origin 
of Israel, sufficient to show that the author was not 
blind in one eye, that the country that had been the 
early home of his people was not a total blank in his 
mind ; but in other respects it is of a nature to show 
that he was wholly ignorant of the sweeping changes 
that between the period of the exodus and the fall of 
Samaria had there occurred : " A Syrian ready to perish 
was my father, and he went down into Egypt and 
sojourned there with a few." How differently must he 
have spoken if his vision had been filled with the scenes 
that floated before the prophetic eye of an Hosea or 
Isaiah ! 

The human mind, indeed, is capable of abstracting 
itself from its surroundings. Rapt enthusiasts in 
science or art have sometimes been known to pursue 
apparently undisturbed the objects of their devotion, 
while sword and flame were wasting about them. But 
such a man the tender and sympathetic writer of Deu- 
teronomy was not. The highest patriotism burns in his 
every utterance. His country's illumined history, her 
divinely sanctioned laws, her past, and still more 
inviting future, — these are his undeviating theme. 
The book before us, in short, as the product of a 
patriotic Jewish pen in the midst of the political 
convulsions of the Assyrian period would be a literary 
monstrum, a psychological contradiction. The elements 
are wanting that could have produced it ; the elements 
are present that, as surely as the action of chemical 
contrarieties, would have made it impossible. 

And this leads, in conclusion to some reflections on 



Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 283 

the spirit that rules in Deuteronomy and other out- 
standing, characteristic moral features that are as 
universal as they are apparently undesigned. There 
is nothing that witnesses more directly or cogently to 
its genuineness ; they precisely fit the theory of Mosaic 
origin ; they are practically inexplicable on any other. 

At the outset, it is noticeable that the spirit of our 
book is at the farthest remove from one of reserve. It 
is as ingenuous and open as the day. It moves 
unembarrassed and with an appearance of the greatest 
familiarity amongst the grandest factors and forces of 
the early Israelitish history. It follows no beaten track. 
It knows the story of Exodus and Numbers ; but it is 
independent of it, shaping the rich material in a way 
peculiar to itself. It puts its hand upon the sacred 
code of Sinai, even that central portion and glory of it 
which was written in stone by the finger of God, 
assuming the right and claiming the prerogative of 
giving it an altered form. 

A bold spirit he must be acknowledged to be. If he 
were not Moses, he could not have acted with more 
supremacy of knowledge or apparent consciousness of 
authority if it had been he. Things are taken for 
granted which a romancer would have been careful to 
fortify with arguments. Statements are volunteered 
which prudence would have led him to keep back. 
Matters are passed over in silence which a secret 
anxiety must have led him to divulge and expatiate 
upon. Infinitely touching things are said, and in a 
manner that is no less touching. Solemn judgments, 
promises of unheard-of good are uttered in the character 
of one who spoke from God and with God. 

Prophets there were many in Israel. If this repre- 
sentation be correct, here was the prophet of the old 



284 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stincctnre. 

economy. Others saw visions and dreamed dreams ; 
he spoke face to face with God and was deemed worthy 
of honors never claimed for an Amos or an Isaiah. 
Somebody adds, in the closing section of the book : 
"There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto 
Moses." On its face it is a later addition, like the rest 
of the chapter. But it is the "amen" that confirms 
the letter of the history or the self-praise that seals 
the counterfeit. 

The countenance of Moses, it is said, shone with the 
radiance of the divine presence. He had great jDriv- 
ileges ; but he had also great responsibilities and trying 
ordeals. Heaven honored his intercessions with signal 
deliverances ; but heaven punished his sin with a visi- 
tation so severe that nothing could better serve to 
magnify the law and make it honorable. The promised 
land he might not set his foot upon ; and yet God com- 
forted him and God buried him. A paradox truly, but 
only on the hypothesis of unreality. Without an army, 
without the restraints of established customs and regular 
occupations, by the sheer force of his goodness, his 
disinterestedness, his supreme patience, and the favor 
of God, he led, as a father, for forty years, the most 
intractable and obstinate of peoples. The intrigues of 
his own family neither disheartened nor angered him. 

Alive as few others to the demands of even-handed 
justice, having for his great task the training of a people 
in the arts of war as well as of peace in a rude age, it is 
still the law of love to God as a rule of conduct on which 
he everywhere chiefly insists. Five several times he 
returns to it (Deut. vi. 4 f . ; x. 1 2 ; xi. 13; xxx. 6, 20) 
with emphatic reiteration ; and the aged John, who of 
all the apostles perhaps drank in most of the spirit of 
the gospel, but echoes in his farewell letter the farewell 



\, 



Unity and Genuineness of D enter onomy. 285 

message of the great lawgiver of the wilderness : '' He 
that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him " 
(i John iv. 16). Strangers, widows, and the fatherless 
were his especial charge (x. 1 8 ; xiv. 29 ; xvi. 1 1 ; xxiv. 
17, 19; xxvi. 12), another Israel within Israel. 

Recognizing that higher truth of Paul, that the 
written law is not made for a righteous man (i Tim. 
i. 9), his point of view throughout is superior to the 
code he so rigorously lays down. He commands, for 
example, that the poor brother shall be relieved. 
"Thou shalt not harden thy heart, nor shut thy hand," 
he says, "from thy poor brother." But beyond this 
point, where mere human law must stop short, he goes 
on to say : " And thy heart shall not be grieved when 
thou givest unto him " (Deut. xv. 10). He enjoins 
upon masters that they load their departing slaves with 
gifts and rewards : " Thou shalt furnish him liberally 
out of thy flock and out of thy floor and out of thy 
wine-press." But it is no injunction, it is a moving 
entreaty, when he adds : " It shall not seem hard unto 
thee when thou sendest him away free from thee " 
(Deut. XV. 10, 18). 

If this be invention, the inventor meant that it should 
be received as fact, as indeed it was, and ever gratefully 
has been. It is that alone which has given the book all 
the authority and all the power for good it has ever had. 
But if it be invention, the effrontery and real falseness 
of the invention is only equaled by its spiritual beauty 
and ideal truth. If it be invention, the discovery to the 
world of the mysterious inventor, who combined within 
himself qualities so exceptionally excellent with those 
so exceptionally otherwise, might be some compensation 
for the loss from sacred history of such a character and 
career as that of the Moses of the exodus. 



286 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

The Book of Deuteronomy is distinctly based on the 
presumption that the man whom it makes its hero has 
an important history behind him. It everywhere 
implies, in fact, something answering to what we 
learn of Moses in the middle books of the Pentateuch. 
Without this previous history the representation of him 
is not simply a torso, it is the barest fragment of a full- 
sized figure. The period that the narrative covers is 
only the few hurried days preceding the passage of the 
Jordan. Moses appears upon the scene as already an 
old man whose work is virtually over. He wears, 
indeed, accustomed honors ; exercises still, with un- 
diminished zeal, a shepherd's care for his people ; but 
we are never suffered to forget that we are listening to 
parting words and looking upon one of the most solemn 
of farewells. 

The book opens with a significant reference to the 
fortieth year, expecting the reader, without explanation, 
to understand what is meant by it. The entire matter, 
unlike that of any other book of the five, is of a purely 
subjective cast. The ecclesiastical and theocratical 
nomenclature of Leviticus and Numbers has disappeared 
along with the topics on which it was employed. It is 
the people who are addressed, and on civil and social 
themes ; but a people called of God, and all whose 
institutions are to be fashioned with chief reference to 
his claim. Ethical precepts are those chiefly empha- 
sized. The Lord their God is God of gods and Lord 
of lords, a great God, a mighty and a terrible, who 
regardeth not persons nor taketh reward. He executeth 
judgment for the fatherless and widow, and loveth the 
stranger, giving him food and raiment (x. 17, 18). 

The ten commandments furnish the keynote and 
starting-point of all the Deuteronomic laws. Their 



Unity and Genuineness of Denteronc»ny, 287 

afifinity is naturally with the Sinaitic code, rather than 
with the priestly regulations of the middle books. Of 
both Moses professes to have been the mediator (iv. 5, 
10). He is apparently not insensible to the difficulties 
that such a claim involves, and is equally ready to 
confess his limitations, infirmities, and sins. He does 
not hesitate to set in the boldest relief the miraculous 
nature of Jehovah's dealings with his covenant people. 
"Did ever a people," he asks, "hear the voice of God 
speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast 
heard, and live } " But he hesitates just as little, with 
all his brooding tenderness of feeling, to charge that 
favored people to their faces with rebellion, with weak 
defection and despicable cowardice, with stiff -neckedness 
and hard-heartedness since he had known them ( i. 26, 
31, 43 ; vi. 16; ix. 6, 22, 24). Not for their sakes, but 
for the fathers' sakes were they chosen (x. 15), and in 
all that "great and terrible wilderness" had there been 
folded about them the everlasting arms. 

Would such sentiments have been calculated to 
recommend a book calling for the sweeping reforms of 
this to men of the later day } The sudden lapse from 
efforts at betterment when the outward pressure ceased 
shows in the midst of what a fearful current of opposi- 
tion the revivals of Hezekiah and Josiah had been 
begun. 

Lessons from the past alternate throughout with 
solemn admonitions for the future. The Bible fur- 
nishes few examples of warnings which in melting 
pathos or awful power equal those of this book (cf. 
xxviii.). It does not surprise us that the rabbins of a 
later day named it the "Book of Admonitions." The 
possibility and fear, rising in some places to prophetic 
conviction, that the Israel of Red Sea deliverances and 



288 The PentateiLcJi : Its Oriorin and Structure 



i> 



of Sinai would yet one day lapse from its high privilege, 
and lose sight for a time of its predestined goal, domi- 
nate like a trumpet-tone beginning, middle, and end of 
this series of discourses. It is for this reason, among 
others, that the fourteen chapters of legislation, whose 
faithful observance was meant to prevent the day of 
calamity, are flanked by Ebal and Gerizim. That 
imposing ceremonial should be forever afterward a 
solemn and restraining memory (xi. 29 ; xxvii.). 

For this reason, too, the heroic leader desires to be 
with his people as long as possible. How much of the 
Book of Deuteronomy might have been unknown to us, 
or have appeared in quite another form, had he been 
able to complete in person the conquests of which 
the forty years of seemingly aimless wanderings and 
his sin had robbed him ! His wish in the matter he 
makes no effort to conceal. Again and again he speaks 
of it in words that tremble with suppressed emotion. 
It had been made the subject of earnest petition (vii. 
23-29). "I must die," he says, "in this land. I may 
not go over Jordan. But ye will go over to possess 
that good land " (iv. 22). 

Moreover, there is but one sole reason given for the 
deprivation. The Lord was angry with him because he 
had failed to be as patient with them, his people, as he 
might have been (iv. 21). At the close of the book the 
subject is introduced in connection with Moses' age 
and infirmities : " He said unto them, I am a hundred 
and twenty years old this day. I can no more go out 
and come in. Also the Lord hath said unto me. Thou 
shalt not go over this Jordan." 

How rare an opportunity for the writer of the book, 
if he had so desired, to clear his hero of the almost 
only stain that rested on his great career, to suggest 



Unity and Genuineness of Deuteronomy. 289 

that it was physical infirmities that unfitted him to 
brave the hardships of a campaign in Canaan ! A few- 
slight changes, and what a different and, as it might be 
thought, far more natural and worthy conclusion should 
we have had for this great man's life ! To die as Jacob 
did, for example, comforted by the ministry of loving 
hands. His faults were venial, compared with Jacob's. 
From a literary point of view it was as unskilful as 
from the point of view of ordinary demerit unkind to 
make that one peccadillo of years gone by stand out 
so conspicuously here at the close and climax of his 
life. But it is like the Bible always to show its 
preference for candor over simple literary effect and 
finish. 

This is no romance. We recognize the force of 
resistless truth. It is charged with a spirit before 
which we unhesitatingly bow. Every mountain alti- 
tude has its peculiar flora and fauna. It would be in 
vain to seek to convince a botanist that certain plants 
were found flourishing on the summit of Mount 
Washington. Ocular proof would not be needful to 
convince him of the contrary. The impossibility would 
be in the nature of things. And there are spiritual 
elevations to which finesse and falsity are of necessity 
strangers. The plane on which the whole Book of 
Deuteronomy moves is one of these moral uplands. It 
begins with the sublimities of Sinai and ends with the 
inimitable solemnities of Nebo and Pisgah. It is no 
effort at historiography interjected with pious expres- 
sions, as some critics^ represent the later biblical 
narratives to be. It is in web and woof sacred history, 
narrated, as it was enacted, under the eye of God. 

2 Wellhausen, Geschichte, i. pp. 340, 349. 



VIII. 

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. 



Current problems of the Biblical criticism of the 
Old Testament have this peculiarity, that it makes little 
difference where one begins to discuss them, he cannot 
easily miss the main question. Indeed, it is an obvious 
misfortune of this criticism, as represented by such 
scholars as Graf and Wellhausen, that, instead of being 
able to concentrate its forces at any one point, it is 
obliged to scatter them along a line reaching from the 
times before Moses to those following Ezra, and to be 
as fully alert in one period as in another, since defeat 
anywhere must result in total rout and overthrow. 

Nominally, its aim seems to be to reconstruct the 
Pentateuch, or rather Israelitish history, on the prin- 
ciple of a natural development ; but this necessitates as 
well a logical and historical revision of the entire Old 
Testament, not excepting the works of post-exilian 
writers. It accepts, as we have seen, only the so-called 
Book of the Covenant (Ex. xx.— xxiii., xxxiv., with nebu- 
lous fragments of history) ^ as the germ of the ancient 
Scriptures, and as representing down to the times of 
Josiah (c. B.C. 621), even through the notable reigns 
of David and Solomon, the aggregate of Israelitish 
annals and laws. With this king it dates the Deuter- 
onomic code, holding it to be a recasting and enlarge- 
ment of these same fragments of Exodus to suit the 

1 Cf. Wellhauscn's edition of Block's Einlciiun^ iti das A. T., p. 178. 



TJic Law and the PropJiets. 291 

emergency of a central sanctuary, that is, of Solomon's 
temple, and the tendency expressing itself in it. The 
Levitical legislation, with its introductory history, 
forming the real body of the first four books of the 
Bible, appeared about two centuries later, under Ezra. 

From this scheme it will at once appear that it is not 
alone the Pentateuch which is involved. The historical 
books must furnish a definite arena of discussion. And 
the prophets before the exile, who it is supposed were 
special sources of the nation's history and religion, are 
a preeminently important factor in the debate, while 
the Psalter and some other portions of the Hagi- 
ography, as evidently reflecting the spirit and teachings 
of the rest, cannot be altogether overlooked. 

In this paper I shall direct attention to but one prin- 
cipal feature of the subject, namely, to the prophets 
who appeared before the exile ; and I shall seek to 
answer the question, whether, in fact, as is alleged by 
our critics, they preceded what is known as the Leviti- 
cal code or followed it ; that is, whether the common 
order, the Law and the Prophets, should stand, or 
should be changed to the Prophets and the Law. As 
already intimated, the settlement of this one question, 
in the nature of the case, must be a virtual settlement 
of the entire discussion in its present form. And while 
there are points where the line of our critics' defence 
might perhaps be considered weaker, there is no point 
where a successful defence is, for the theory they 
defend, more imperatively necessary. 

The question, then, is on the relative order of the 
Law and the Prophets ; and waiving for the time all 
other related matters, let it be determined, if possible, 
from the writings especially involved. Has the cere- 
monial law of Exodus, Numbers, and Leviticus, with 



292 The Pentateuch : Its Origin, and Structure. 

its conspicuous setting of history, left any such impres- 
sion on the prophets referred to as might be expected 
if they had it before them ? Or, more definitely, has 
this part of the Pentateuch left any discoverable 
impression at all upon these prophets, so that its 
existence in their time may be justly inferred, since 
that would be quite enough to prove the point at issue ? 

In the meantime we shall do well to remember who 
these writers are whom we propose to consult ; that 
they are prophets, and not priests ; that their office in 
its essential import, and as interpreted by the whole 
Israelitish history, called them to watch over the spirit 
of the law, not to teach and explain its letter. At all 
times it was the substance, not the form, of it that was 
the subject of their burning utterances.^ 

Some one has said of Milton, and not altogether in 
compliment it is likely, that his soul was like a star 
and dwelt apart. These men, too, moved and shone in 
the spiritual heavens ; yet not, like stars, cold and far 
away. It was more like those nearer heavenly bodies 
that are the very sources of life and force to our little 
earth. They quickened like suns. As they moved so 
ebbed and flowed the tide of human affairs about them. 
And it was precisely the prophets' spiritual elevation 
above the world that enabled them to act to the 
greatest advantage upon the world. It was no mere 
matter of individualism, pronounced as that was 
in the case of some of them. Moreover, it was no 
example of that overvaluation and overrefinement of 
the inward life in distinction from the outward, not 

' So Marti in JahrbYicherfilr Protestaiitische Theologie (1880), p. 159: " Sie [die 
Propheten] waren, also, diejenigen Manner, die zu wachen hatten iiber die wirksame 
Seite des Gottesdienstes im Israelitischen Volke. . . . Sie sind weniger die Wachter der 
Theokratie in ihren cultischen Institutionen als nach ihren sittlichen und moralischen 
Vorschriftcn." Cf. also Dclitzsch in Mcssia)iic Prophecies (Edinburgh, iSSo), pp. 
8-13. 



TJic Laiv and the Prophets. 293 

wholly unknown among ourselves ; that disposition to 
fix the gaze upon some vague and hazy possibilities of 
the future, to the overlooking and the neglect of that 
which presses for an answer now. 

Above all, it was no vulgar appetite for applause that 
impelled them. There was not one of them who would 
not gladly have hidden himself out of sight behind the 
work he did. Several of them, as it is, appear only as 
a name. As in the case of Joel : " The word of the 
Lord which came by Joel, the son of Pethuel," — that 
is literally all that we know of the man's personal 
history. No ; their singularity was of another sort. It 
was that of men who stood and who served on higher 
spiritual levels. They refused to be merged in the 
common class. They declined to sink themselves out 
of sight in any prophetical guild. They were men who 
could not be satisfied to wear a uniform, follow their 
file-leaders, be set in a row and counted. They were 
unwilling to yield up their finer spiritual aspirations 
to that subtle and all-pervasive atmosphere of perfunc- 
toriness in which the men of their time had come to 
live. They felt that somebody must be singular and 
nondescript ; that somebody must resist the tendency 
to trim and adjust to a usage not the highest ; that 
somebody must protest by word and deed against a 
stagnant, depressing, criminal uniformity. And true it 
is, in every age, that it is only on the dusty levels of 
mediocrity that men move in battalions. As soon as 
they begin to ascend, it is always after leaders. 

The leading positions taken by our critics now to 
prove the negative of the question before us are : (i) 
that the prophets before the exile are absolutely silent 
respecting the Levitical code, with the history that 
belongs to it ; and (2) that they show decided hostility 



294 ^^^ PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

to animal sacrifices, a circumstance bearing still more 
directly against its supposed existence.^ On these two 
abutments the critical arch at this point and its whole 
amazing superstructure may be said to rest. And we 
have reason to be thankful for the clearness and unmis- 
takableness of the issue thus presented. 

That both these positions are simply supposititious, 
and have no substantial basis whatever, that indeed 
they are demonstrably false on any fair interpretation 
of the records, I think can be made to appear to really 
candid minds ; and even beyond this, that the first, if 
true, would prove nothing in the present case ; while 
the second can be supported on no grounds which 
would not introduce confusion and absurdity into the 
prophetical literature. 

Starting with a minor point, I remark that, if it were 
to be admitted that the preexilian prophets make no 
direct reference to the Levitical code, it would by no 
means follow that it had no existence in their time. 
Do these prophets in their denunciations of idolatry 
ever make any direct reference to that earliest sup- 
posed fragment of Iraelitish literature, the Book of the 
Covenant, especially to the second commandment, 
holding so prominent a place in the Sinaitic legislation 1 
It is acknowledged to have been extant in this period ; 
it was recognized as Mosaic and authoritative.^ To 

1 See Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels, i. pp. 1-5, 57-59; W. Robertson Smith, The Old 
Testament in the J elvish Church, pp. 286-288; and The Prophets of Israel, pp. 164, 
175 f. ; Duhm, Die Theologie dcr Propheten, pp. 12, 17, 18. 

2 See TJie Old Tcstauieui in the ye^uish Church, pp. 299, 331. In the latter passage 
tliis critic says: " While the Pentateuch does not make Moses the author of the Levitical 
code, it tells that he wrote down certain laws. He wrote down the words of Jehovah's 
covenant with Israel (Ex. xxxiv. 27, 28; Ex. xxiv. 4, 7). In the former passage the 
words of the covenant are expressly identified with the Ten Words on the tables of stone. 
In the latter passage the same thing seems to be meant." This is sufficient to show 
Professor Smith's opinion respecting the Decalogne. When he proceeds on the basis of 
Ex. xxiv. 4 to argue that it was only the Decalogue that Moses is here said to have 
written, the circumstances under which these words were uttered ("And Moses wrote all 



The Lazv and the PropJiets, 295 

cite its clear and exceedingly explicit prohibition of 
graven images and of the service of false gods, 
which these prophets were always in one form or 
another denouncing, one might suppose would have 
been both pertinent and effective. In no case is it 
done. The precepts of this code, moreover, were 
practically ignored by the people down to the time of 
the exile. What, then, is an argument worth drawn 
simply from the absence of direct appeal on the part 
of Israelitish prophets to supposed Mosaic institutions 
and laws 1 

It is well to note, indeed, in passing, into what a 
trying dilemma our critics are brought by this same 
Book of the Covenant, with its pronounced and clear- 
cut enactments. Assuming it to be the sole collection 
of laws possessed by the Israelites till near the close of 
the seventh century b.c, they are not only compelled, 
in direct contravention of a favorite method of argu- 
mentation, to admit that it was never directly appealed 
to, and remained in its principal features inoperative, 
but, to save their theory of the originality of the 
religion of the prophets of this period, must even argue 
that prophets and people were governed by principles 
really antagonistic to it. 

These prophets, they affirm, did not trouble them- 

the v/ords of the Lord," etc.), as following what is narrated in Ex. xx. 18-22, and the laws 
of which that passage is the natural introduction, plainly forbid such a construction. 
Indeed, when it is said, xxiv. 3, that " Moses came and told the people all the words of the 
Lord, and all the judgments," it is evident on the face of it that " all the words " cannot 
refer simply to the Decalogue, and "all the judgments" to the laws that follow it, 
xxi.-xxiii. For (i) the people had themselves heard the Decalogue (xx. 1,19), and did 
not need to have it so especially rehearsed. And (2) on that supposition the people 
would be absurdly represented in xxiv. 3 as saying that they would keep the Decalogue, 
while they decline to say what they would do respecting the "judgments" ("that is, the 
Book of the Covenant, xxi.-xxiii.). While (3), at xxiv. 7, Moses is said to have read in 
the hearing of the people the Book of the Covenant, and secured their assent to it before 
ratifying with them, by the sprinkling of blood, the Covenant with which it stood in 
connection. Cf. also Dillmann's Commentary on Die Bucher Exodus und Leviticus 
(1880), p. 256, 



296 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

selves about image-worship, or any other special form 
of cultus. Elijah had no quarrel with Ahab concerning 
golden calves, says Professor Smith, more than once, in 
his latest work.^ In fact, to avoid the necessity of 
taking account of the first and second commandments 
as recognized motives influencing the minds of men 
during this period, we find this critic resorting to a 
style of reasoning as utterly trivial as it is unjustified 
by anything that we know in the premises. 

Elijah, who could not have been ignorant of the 
words written by the divine finger : " Thou shalt have 
no other gods before me ; . . . Thou shalt not make 
unto thee any graven image," Elijah, it is said, was 
moved to oppose the worship of Baal in his time, among 

1 The Prophets of Israel, pp. 96, 109, 113. Professor Green, in Moses and the 
Prophets, p. 265, as it seems to me, uses language none too strong when he characterizes 
this position as an " atrocious misrepresentation." " If there is any one thing," he goes 
on to say, " of which Jehovah expresses his utter abhorrence everywhere throughout the 
Scriptures, it is the practice of idolatry in whatever form; and that a true prophet of the 
Lord, jealous as Elijah was for his name and worship in a time of widespread apostasy, 
and to whose divine commission such signal attestations were given by the Lord himself, 
could possibly have been * indifferent ' to what was so grossly dishonoring to God, or, as it 
is mildly put in the passage above cited, ' plainly out of place ' in his worship, is absolutely 
beyond belief." Cf. also, Bbhl, Zttm Gesetz 7ind ztcm Zetigniss, p. 71 f. " Und hier 
sei es nun gestattet, ein ernstes Wort mit jenen Krilikern zu reden, welche den Kal- 
berdienst im Nordreiche Israel fiir etwas ganz Unverfangliches halten, wogegen weder Elia 
noch Elisa protestirt hatten. Zuerst habe Hosea von seinem besonderen theologischen 
Standpunkt aus dagegen Verwahrung eingelegt. 1st denn flir diese Kritiker i Kon. 
Cap. 13 absolut nicht vorhanden? Ein Mann Gottes aus Juda, also ein Prophet des 
wahren Gottes, bedroht hier den Altar von Bethel, vor dem gerade Jerobeam opfert, und 
verheisst ein Racher ex ossibtis Davidis, der die Hohenpriester auf diesem Altar opfern 
und ihn dadurch entheiligen werde. Zur Gewahr der Richtigkeit dieser Verheissung gibt 
er nach Prophetnart das naher liegende Zeichen, dass der Altar zerbersten und die 
opferasche sich verschiitten werde, was denn alsbald geschah. Die zur Lahmlegung 
dieses Propheten gebieterisch ausgcstreckte Hand Jcrobeam's verdorrt und wirdgeheilt; 
dannabermuss Jerobeam die furchtbare Abweisung Scitens des Propheten erfahren, dass 
derselbe niclit einmaleinen Bissen Brots von ihm annchmen will. Obschon augenblickiich 
geheilt, ist er doch verworfen flir immcr mit sammt seinem ganzcn Kalberdeinst! Nach 
Wellhausen (S. 300) ist dass nun eine grobe Legcnde, die nicht einmal dem Deuterono- 
misten angehbrt. Warum das der Fall ist, dass erfahren wir absolut nicht (Was Wellhausen 
beibringt, hat nicht den Schein eines Grundes, denn Cap. 13, 33 steht deutlich: * Jerobeam 
inacJUe wicder, d. h. wieter Pricster der Hbhen) es ist dass ein solches dictum, wie es 
sich die modernen Kritiker gern gestatten, und dass eben zu jenen gehbrt, die sich dann wie 
ein Dogma durch die neuerenkritischen Schriften hindurchziehen." 



The Law and the Prophets. 297 

other things, by the wine-bibbing habits of the Baal 
worshipers.^ 

Hezekiah, of whom the writer of the Books of Kings 
declares that he " clave unto the Lord " and kept his 
commandments "which the Lord commanded Moses," 
according to the Scotch professor became a reformer 
under circumstances even less creditable to his good 
sense and supposed loyalty to the national religion. 
He had seen, as the result of recent wars, many heathen 
shrines demolished and finally abandoned ; while the 
temple at Jerusalem, in view of its apparent inviola- 
bility, at the same time assumed a relatively greater 
importance. Hence the thought came to him. Why 
should not he set about the demolition of idolatrous 
shrines and so enhance still more the importance of 
the temple ? ^ 

The conclusiveness of this reasoning is only equaled 
by that of the same critic when he announces that the 
code of Deuteronomy *' must be regarded as in a great 
measure a product of reflection on the failure of 
Hezekiah's measures." ^ Criticism, properly speaking, 
this is not. It does not indicate even a candid inspec- 

1 The Prophets of Israel, pp. 84, 85. Professor Smith admits that this is only a surmise 
of his. " We have no evidence that Elijah had a personal connection with the Rechab- 
ites; but Jonadab was a prominent partisan of Jehu, and went with him to see his zeal for 
Jehovah when he put an end to Baal and his worshipers" (2 Kings x. 15 sq.). The 
other things which are supposed to have influenced Elijah in his opposition to Baal were: 
(i) the influence of the prophetic guilds, although the Professor concedes that " Elijah 
himself, as far as we can judge, had little to do with these guilds "; and (2) the sense of 
the injustice done to Naboth by Ahab in the matter of the vineyard. These are all the 
reasons which this critic can find for Elijah's contest with the prophets of Baal and their 
hideous idolatry. 

2 The Prophets of Israel, p. 362 f. 

3 Ibid. p. 368 f. It was not the result of reflection on the prohibitions of the Deca- 
logue, or on the inherent wrong of idolatry; but " it starts from the observation that it 
is impossible to get rid of Canaanite elements of worship until sacrifice and ritual obser- 
vances are confined to one sanctuary, and that this again is impossible till the old principle 
is given up that all food, and especially every animal slain for a feast, is unclean unless 
presented at the altar." So it is to political shrewdness and finesse, as well as sober 
reflection, that we are to ascribe the origin of the Deuteronomic code. 



298 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stvncture. 

tion of the records ; but only a not very happy faculty 
for guessing, here too much under the influence of the 
faculty for wishing to be a safe guide in historical 
questions. I have heard of an artist who once bought 
on the market a cheap picture of an animal, and finding 
it scrapable, scraped out of it a masterpiece by Correg- 
gio. But who ever heard of an artist persistently 
attempting to reverse this process ? 

These, however, are merely negative results. We 
now go further, and affirm that the Israelitish prophets 
who rose before the exile, so far from being absolutely 
silent respecting the Levitical code and unaffected by 
it, on the contrary show, from first to last, that it has 
made a most powerful impression upon them. Their 
work, severally and unitedly, is largely a work of 
recovery and repair in significant harmony with its 
provisions ; while, as we believe, definite allusion is 
made to it as to a well-known, extensive, and divinely 
authoritative body of laws. 

There is the prophet Joel, for example, who, until the 
exigencies of this new theory made another conclusion 
imperative, was regarded by the almost unanimous 
consent of scholars as one of the oldest in the list.^ 
He says nothing, it is true, about any Mosaic law of 
offerings which controlled the sacrificial ritual of the 
temple in his day. But is it any the less to the point 
that, in evident sympathy with an established priest- 
hood, on the occasion of a great national calamity he 

1 And it may be said that one of the chief problems of the Wellhausen type of critics 
has seemed all along to have been how best to discredit, or get rid of, the defendant's 
witnesses. As late as 1875, when Duhm's Theologie der Propheieii appeared, he was 
obliged to admit the virtual unanimity of scholars on the question of Joel's early date. 
He says (p. 71): " Zwar wird gegenwtirtig Joel fast mi t einstimmigkcit hohcr hinauf 
gesetzt; doch hoffen wir das jiingcre Alter dieses Propheten mit iibcrwiegender Wahrschein- 
lichkeit erweiscn zu konnen." The proofs given, however (pp. 275-277), are, for the 
most part, simply a begging of the question, being based on the truthfulness of the 
theory wliich is under discussion, namely, that the Levitical code originated at the time 
of the exile. 



The Laiv and the Prophets. 299 

summons them as ministers of his God to gird them- 
selves and lament because the meal-offering and drink- 
offering are cut off from the house of their God (i. 13) ? 

So, too, Amos, the inspired herdsman of Tekoa, who 
prophesied near the beginning of the eighth century 
B.C., and, though himself from Judah, in that marked 
unity of spirit which characterized all the prophets, 
carried his bold message to the very centre of 
idolatrous worship in the northern kingdom. It is of 
transgression that he speaks. There is some definite 
law of the Lord (ii. 4; cf. Lev. xxvi. 15) which has 
been despised and statutes which have not been kept. 

It is evident, moreover, that something more than 
the Decalogue is referred to (iv. 6-1 1 ; v. 4, 5, 21, 22), 
when, with withering sarcasm, which would have been 
simply farcical if there had been no reference to a 
legally established place and order of worship, he bids 
the people of Israel come to Bethel and transgress and 
at Gilgal to multiply transgressions ; and, further, in 
masterly hyperbole, summons them to bring their slain 
offerings every morning, their tithes ojiee in three days^ 
and, like the Pharisees of aftertimes, to publish abroad 
their freewill offerings, whose value was in their being 
the product of a silent, inward sense and impulse. In 
these utterances there are nearly as many allusions to 
requirements of the Levitical or Deuteronomic legisla- 
tion as there are clauses (Deut. xiv. 28, 29; xvi. 10; 
Lev. xxii. 21, 23 ; Num. xv. 3). 

Hosea, beginning his work near the same time, but 
still, according to our critics, not far from two centuries 
before the appearance of Deuteronomy, and three and 
a half centuries before the code of Leviticus was 
conceived by Ezra and his coadjutors, we find hotly 
denouncing the priesthood of his day ; not as priests, 



300 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

observe, but as those who had been unfaithful and 
wilfully ignorant of their appointed work. They 
had misled the people. They had forgotten the law 
of their God (iv. 6.) and God, therefore, repudiated 
them. 

From the immediate context and other utterances of 
this prophet it is plain enough to see what this law is 
which, in his view, the priests have forgotten and 
trampled upon. It is a law which has to do with the 
sin-offering 1 and other sacrifices (iv. 8; cf. Lev. vi. 19; 
Hos. viii. 13 ; ix. 4) ; with the distinction in food as 
clean and unclean (ix. 3, 4) ; with feasts, and new 
moons, and Sabbaths (ii. 13, cf. Lev. xxiii. 2, 4 ff.). 
Moreover, it is a written law of wide extent and many 
precepts. ''I write for him," says the prophet in the 
name of the Lord, *' the myriads of my law" (viii. 12, 
not "the great things of my law," as the A. V. has it) 
— "they were accounted a strange thing." 

I am aware that among those who think the prophecy 
of Hosea ought not to contain such a sentiment the 
most persistent efforts have been made to put upon 
these plain words a different meaning ; but the motive 
has been too transparent and the exegesis too strained 
to command anything more than a strictly partisan sup- 

^Lit., "They eat [fut. expressing the idea of what is customary] the sin of my 
people." Wellhausen {Gcschi'chic, i. p. 75) and liis adherents (cf. The Old Test, in 
the yeivish Church, p. 251 ; The Prophets of Israel, p. 105) deny that the sin-offering is 
referred to. But if the priests are here spoken of, it is difficult to see what else can be 
meant. According to the Levitical code (Lev. vi. 19), a part of the ceremony of this 
very sin-offering was for the priest to eat of it; and there can be no good reason for sup- 
posing that this is not meant here, except that it would offer an insurmountable obstacle to 
the new theory. That a fine paid in money to the priest by the transgressor is intended 
can by no means be admitted. A passage adduced in its support (2 Kings xii. 17) does 
not mean this (cf. Theile, Die B'uchcr der Kd)iii^c, in loc.) ; and there is nothing in the 
Old Testament which gives the least coloring to the hypothesis tliat any such system of 
indulgences was ever known in Israel. The context of our passage shows that with the 
priests of Hosea's time the eating was the principal part of the ceremonial of the sin- 
offering. And they were quite willing that the people should commit more sin that 
they themselves might have the more to cat. (Cf. the conduct of Eli's sons, i Sam. ii. 
12-17.) 



TJie Law and the PropJicts. 30 1 

port.^ In fact, in addition to the evident references to 
the Mosaic laws, moral or ritual, just referred to, it has 
been shown by a recent writer that there is not a single 
book of the Pentateuch which, in the way of illustration 
or historical reminiscence has not left its impression on 
the pages of our prophet.^ 

Micah, also, in that memorable passage (vi. 6-'^) cited 
by our critics to show that he rejected sacrifices alto- 
gether, demanding in their place that men should do 
justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God, in 
this very utterance but echoes, as it should seem, a 
sentiment of the Book of Deuteronomy (x. 12), which 
it is affirmed did not yet exist, and presupposes the 
practice of ritual observances whose warrant can only 
be found in the Levitical code (Lev. ix. 3 ; cf. Num. xv. 
1-16; xxviii., xxix.). 

But of still more importance than these isolated 
references is the fact that there are certain grand 
features of the preexilian prophets, common at least to 
the most of them, which, in the nature of the case, can 

1 Professor Smith (The Old Test. etc. p. 297) says: " But the prophets of the eighth 
century never speak of a written law of Moses. The only passage which has been taken 
to do so is Hosea viii. 12. And here the grammatical translation is, ' Though I wrote for 
him my Torah in ten thousand precepts ' they would be esteemed a strange thing." 
[Revised version : "Though I write for him, etc., . . . they are counted."] The matter, 
however, is not so easily disposed of. If the use of the past tense in the last clause is 
not allowed any weight in determining how the first verb is to be rendered, or if Smend's 
objection {Studie?t w. Krit., 1876, p. 633) that the hypothetical translation emasculates 
the passage of all sense whether the verb or the word for " ten thousand" be emphasized, 
still how can it be denied that there lies on the face of the declaration the presiippositioii 
of a ivritien Torah? One of the latest commentators (Nowack, Der Prophet Hosea, 
p. 140) renders the verb as Ewald rendered it by " ich schreibe." But though it were to 
be taken hypothetically (as the future in Ps. xci. 7), that must not be allowed to obscure 
the obvious force of the verb that follows. As Bredenkamp has insisted: "Das als 
thatsachlich ausgesagte Fremdachten der Torah oder Toroth (LXX.),setzt nothwendig 
das Vorhandensein desselben und zwar als geschriebener voraus" (Gesetz -iind Propheten 
p. 37 f.). Cf. also " the law of the Lord and his statutes " in Amos (ii. 4), of which 
Rudolph Smend wrote in 1876: " I do not understand how Duhm can affirm that these 
words should not be directly referred to an external divine law. For choq is really just 
^statutum" {Studien u. Krit. (1876), p. 634, note). 

' Curtiss, Levitical Priests, pp. 176-178; cf. Smend, I.e. p. 641. 



302 The PeJitateuch : Its Origin and SUnicture. 

only be accounted for by regarding them as the result 
of the priestly legislation of the Pentateuch. One of 
them is the uniform attitude of these prophets toward 
a central sanctuary. According to the current criticism 
they ought, at least the oldest of them, to be wholly 
silent on this subject, since, until Deuteronomy 
appeared, more than two hundred years after the date 
of Joel and Amos, and a hundred after that of Hosea, 
Micah, and Isaiah, there was no sign of a law regarding 
it. Every one did, it is said, in this respect what was 
right in his own eyes (cf. Deut. xii. 8). In fact, it is 
supposed that there was sufficient justification for such 
a state of things found in the Book of the Covenant 
itself (Ex. XX. 24, 25). 

It is Joel, however, who calls for the proclamation of 
a solemn fast in Zion, that is, Jerusalem (ii. 15), and 
declares that it is the dwelling-place of Jehovah (iv. 17). 
It is Amos who begins his terrible arraingmcnt of the 
kingdoms of the earth, especially of Judah and Israel, 
with the thrilling words " Out of Zion the Lord roareth, 
and uttereth his voice from Jerusalem " (i. 2). Bethel, 
the seat of idolatry, is to him a Beth-Aven (a seat of 
nothingness), and at Gilgal and Beersheba God would 
be sought in vain (v. 4-6). 

It is Hosea, a citizen of tJie northerji kingdom, who 
invariably stigmatizes that kingdom as an organized 
apostasy, without a future and unworthy of the favor of 
Jehovah. Judah it was that should find mercy and 
salvation from the Lord their God (i. 6, 7 ; cf. xiv. i). 
With his eyes fixed, as it would appear, on Jerusalem, 
he delivers the message which closes his book: "Take 
with you words, and turn to the Lord ; say unto him. 
Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously ; so 
will we render the calves of our lips " (xiv. 2, 3 ; cf. his 



TJie Law and the PropJiets, 303 

attitude toward Jehu (i. 4) after he had shown his true 
character). 

So too, Micah, in that sublime prediction concerning 
the last days, when the mountain of the house of the 
Lord should be established on the top of the mountains, 
announces that it is from Zion that the law shall go 
forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (iv. 
2, 3). And especially Isaiah, the close of whose pro- 
phetical activity antedated still by three quarters of a 
century the supposed date of Deuteronomy, leaves us 
no room to doubt how he regarded a plurality of altars 
amorrg his countrymen. Zion is the mountain of the 
Lord to which the nations shall resort (ii. 2 ff.), copying 
the very words of his contemporary Micah (iv. i, 2), to 
give additional emphasis to the thought. The Lord 
would dwell on Zion, as once in the fiery cloud of the 
wilderness, and no enemy, not even a Sennacherib, 
should dare to lift his hand against it (x. 32 ; cf. xxxiii. 
20 ; XXX. 29). 

To those who find it not only unnecessary, but pre- 
sumptuous, to make allowance in these utterances of 
God's prophets for a supposed political bias such 
evidence as this will be amply conclusive. The theory 
that during all this period there existed no statute 
touching a central sanctuary where the ordinary 
worship of God was to be conducted is a chimera. 
Defection, illegality, ignorance, perverseness there was 
enough of ; but there was also something lying back in 
the early history of the people, well-known, fixed, and 
authoritative, which no true prophet could ignore and 
to which no instructed Israelitish conscience could fail 
to respond. 

Let us direct attention to another thing made 
singularly emphatic by these early prophets, and yet 



304 The PentateucJi : Its Origin and Stmctnre. 

most singularly made emphatic if the theory of our 
critics be accepted ; namely, the fact that a solemn 
covenant existed between Jehovah and the Israelitish 
people. Sometimes it is under the form of the marriage 
relation that it is represented, as very largely and 
repeatedly by Hosea (i.-iii.), who, it may be said, is full 
of the thought and fortifies himself in it against the 
stout resistance of rulers and people (vi. 5, 7 ; viii. i). 
He charges them with swearing falsely in making this 
covenant (x. 4), and with being a people bent on 
backsliding (xi. 7 ; cf. xiv. i).^ Sometimes, as in Amos, 
it is by a touching allusion to the early history (iii. 
1-3). The sons of Israel are the family whom God had 
brought up out of Egypt. Them only had he known of 
all the families of the earth ; therefore he would punish 
them for their iniquity. Could two walk together 
except they were agreed } (Cf. also iv. 6-1 1 ; v. 4, 5, 21, 
22.) Sometimes, as in the graceful metaphors of an 
Isaiah, it is under the image of a family whom God had 
nourished and brought up, to be repaid with unthank- 
fulness and rebellion (i. 2, 4) ; or of a vineyard on which 
there could not have been expended more kindly effort, 
while it had rewarded its patient and painstaking Lord 
only with wildness and emptiness (v. 2, 4). 

But under whatever form it may appear, it is every- 
where a conspicuous and controlling fact with these 
earlier prophets. Their most powerful reasoning is 
rooted in it, and from it, as from an acknowledged event 
of history, their most stirring appeals find directest 

1 So Nowack, ibid. p. xxx. of the Einleitung : " Sehen wir darauf hln unser Buch an, 
so ergiebt sich als Grundvoraussetziing fur die Biisspredigt Iloseas die, dass Jahve In der 
Zeit, da Israel aus Egypien zogund in der Wiiste weilte, dies Volk sich envahlt und einen 
Bund mitihm geschlossen (ix. lo; xi. i ; xii. lo; xiii. 4, 5) ; kraft dessen Israel cine Reihe 
von Verpflichtungen auf sich nahm, die in der Torah Jahves niedergelegt sind (viii. i, 
12), als deren Inhaber und Yerkiindiger Hosea die Priester dieses Reiches ansieht " 
(iv. 6). 



'TJie Law and the Prophets. 305 

inspiration. So common and universally accepted, 
indeed, had the thought become, that it had already 
passed over from a literal to a metaphorical sense, and 
we find Hosea (ii. 20) speaking of a covenant which the 
Lord would make with beasts of the field, for Israel's 
sake. 

Carlyle speaks of a peculiar class of people in his day 
who, in writing and deed, struggled not in favor of 
duty being done, but against duty of any sort being 
required. 1 Our prophets obviously did not belong to 
such a class. They have the keenest possible sense of 
certain obligations which had been assumed by Israel, 
and hence of certain inevitable obligations to be dis- 
charged by Israel. 

Now, will any one venture the assertion that such a 
thought and moral force as this of the covenant could 
have sprung from the oral transmission of those few 
chapters of Exodus known as the Book of the Cove- 
nant 1 By no means. Its solemn basis and warrant lie 
outside that book (cf. especially xix. 3-6 f. ; xxiv, 3 f.). 
Our critics themselves rather seek to deny that any 
such covenant existed ; or, if it existed in thought, that 
it was anything more than a figment of the brain, a 
mere fancy of the prophets, no real thing presupposing 
two covenanting parties ; presupposing as to the Israel- 
ites any actual covenant must (Ps. 1. 5), and as the very 
etymology of the word and history of the conception 
demand, sacrificial blood to solemnize it and sacredly 
bind the coA/enanting parties to its provisions. ^ 

^ Remifttscences by Froude (Harper's ed.), ii, p. 76. 

2 Cf. Zech. ix. II : " Even thou ! through the blood of thy covenant, I have sent forth 
thy prisoners out of the pit." There can be no doubt that the ceremonies recorded in Ex. 
xxiv. 3-8 are here referred to. Wellhausen says, in a note on p. 434 of his Geschichte, 
i.: " Die Vorstellung eines zwischen Jahve und Israel eingegangenen Bundes (Berith), 
von der aus die Autoritaten der Biblischen Theologie das ganze Alte Testament zu 
veritehen glauben, findet sich bei den alteren Propheten nicht." 



3o6 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origiit and Structure. 

Could anything be more fatal than thus to fly in the 
face of what is written as plainly on the whole pro- 
phetical literature of this period as high spiritual 
aspiration and loyalty to Jehovah are written there ? 
It is as an unfaithful wife that Israel is depicted, who 
has forgotten the days of her first tender love, when, 
led by a prophet of the Lord, she came up out of 
Egypt (Hos. ii. 17; xi. i; xii. 14). She has broken 
her plighted troth and been treacherous and untrue 
(Hos. V. 7 ; vi. 7). She is even represented as saying 
in the better future, '' I will arise and return to my first 
husband; for it was better with me then than now" 
(Hos. ii. 7). There is nothing more characteristic of 
the prophetical activity of an Hosea or Amos than just 
this uniform and persistent effort to reclaim and bring 
back the nation to what appears to be a universally 
acknowledged standard. Human language offers no 
resources to express more strongly than is here 
expressed the sense of the prophets that Israel had 
fallen away, backslidden, broken faith with God. This 
is the actual, palpable substance of their commonest 
utterances. 

We never find them, as though founders of a new 
religion, dealing in abstractions or generalities ; hover- 
ing in the air with imaginary conceptions of duty ; 
pulling now one way and now another, or, in obvious 
collusion, joining their forces to hoodwink a credulous 
people. They are at the farthest possible remove from 
anything like mere histrionic representation There 
is one thing which all will freely accord to these men, 
and that is, a marked intellectual superiority. But 
there is another thing which we must just as certainly 
accord them — a deep and all-pervading intellectual 
sincerity and uprightness. They had tremendous con- 



The Lazv and the Prophets. 307 

victions, not a bit of dilettanteism. They believed, 
therefore they spoke. If they appear somewhat intol- 
erant it is because they felt that they had the warrant 
of history, and of the God of history, to be intolerant. 
It is with historical and popularly accepted facts that 
their message is concerned whether here or there, 
with something well known to all, and long known, 
and known not simply by the understanding, but also 
by the heart and conscience. 

A marked characteristic of the Hebrew prophets 
I say was this, that they were men of thorough and 
intense convictions. Their utterances were first bur- 
dens that pressed with the weight of positive truths on 
their own hearts. The horizon of their knowledge may 
have been limited; but, so far as it concerned their 
communications, it was clearly defined. The era of 
half-truths had not yet dawned. Religious speculation 
had not yet seduced the serious-minded from the con- 
templation and the realization of awful facts. The 
word " agnostic," which may be explained as the polite 
excuse of ignorance urged in our day as a veil for 
indifference or contempt, was still unknown. Above all, 
a spirit of agnosticism had not so taken possession of 
God's' own servants that they were unwilling to speak 
with positiveness, even where He himself had clearly 
made revelations and enjoined duties. The great first 
principles of religion, the being and personality of God, 
His government by a plan which literally leaves noth- 
ing out, the inexorable law of righteousness, the innate 
ugliness and clinging curse of sin, these were not 
with them matters of technical, philosophical discussion, 
but fixed and overwhelming motives. On them they 
planted themselves, and there they rested, as on an 
immovable fulcrum, the mighty lever of their influence 



3o8 TJie Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

over men. The problems they had to face, the work 
they had to do, really left no margin for vacillation and 
uncertainty on questions like these. I do not mean, 
please note, that the prophets of Israel fully understood, 
in their widest relations, all of their own utterances. 
It is clear that they did not. I mean just as little to 
say that what they had to declare was always in 
harmony with their natural inclinations. It was often 
quite the reverse. What, indeed, is more pitiful in 
human story — tragic, one might say, if it were 
regarded simply as human story — than the lives of 
some of these men .? It was just this sharp antago- 
nism between a sense of imperative duty and all the 
kindly impulses of the human heart that wrung from 
them such touching exclamations as abound in their 
writings.^ 

It was on the ground of an alleged covenant that 
Israel is called upon to be a holy people to the Lord 
(Ex. xix. 5, 6; Lev. xi. 44; xx. 25, 26; Deut. xiv. 21). 

1 Cf. Watson, The Law and the PropJiets, p. 79: " The teaching of the prophets is 
such that a careful preparation of the teachers is demanded. Prophetical teaching is not 
one of those common plants concerning which we do not need to ask whence it springs. 
The prophets have familiarized us with certain principles of right. They have taught us 
what it is which makes a man acceptable in God's sight. Their teaching on these 
points is accepted by all Christians as certain, nay, as obvious, truth. But these truths 
were not always familiar and obvious. Their doctrine, when they taught it, was in 
many ooints new and strange. It is certain they derived no help from heathen teachers. 
It is certain they were far in advance of their nation and tlicir time. Hence the serious 
difficulty which arises when the sole basis of their teaching is taken away. 

" The teaching of the prophets was unique; it was also one consistent whole. The 
prophet'i' teachings were at unity amongst themselves. What was the cause of this 
agreement ? Cause there must have been. The prophets did not hand down from age to 
age the sayings of their predecessors. Of them as of the Great Prophet it was true, they 
taught with authority, and not as the scribes. The later canonical prophets used freely 
the writings of the earlier ones, but they were independent teachers. The earlier 
prophets were in the main independent of one another. We want a founder of the pro- 
phetical school of thought, but unless he is Moses we cannot find him. On the critical 
theory he cannot be Moses. The very few, though no doubt groat, ideas, which the 
modern critics allow Moses to have left behind, do not make a sufliciently wide common 
groimd for the prophetical teaching. On the traditional theory the agreement of the 
prophets is natural; they have all the same teacher, even God, and they all use the same 
textbook, the Pentateuch. On the critical theory the agreement is inexplicable." 



The Law and the PropJiets. 309 

They were his pecuHar possession. He was holy and 
they should be holy. And it is noticeable that this 
idea of holiness, though naturally, as found in our 
prophets, not bounded by the external requirements of 
the Levitical code (Isa. vi. 3), at least takes knowledge 
of them and is everywhere more or less modified by 
them. Hence it is that Jeremiah distinguishes^ the cir- 
cumcised Israelite, who is yet uncircumcised in heart, 
from the uncircumcised Egyptian (ix. 24, 25). He 
recognizes the outward rite no less that he recognizes 
also its inward, spiritual meaning. And Isaiah, the 
most idealistic of all these earlier prophets, stigmatizes 
the people of his day as rebellious, in that they pollute 
themselves by dwelling amidst the sepulchres of the 
dead, lodging in the monuments, and eating swine's 
flesh, the broth of abominable (that is, ceremonially 
unclean) things steaming in their caldrons (Ixv. 3, 4 ; 
Ixvi. ly)} 

Everywhere the land of Israel is looked upon as holy 
for Israel's sake (Amos vii. 17; Hosea ix. 3, 5); Zion 
and its temple are holy ; and no less the altar-gifts and 
those who offer them (Isa. xxiii. 18; xliii. 28 ; Jer. xi. 
15); feasts. Sabbaths, and festival days (Isa. xxx. 29; 
Ivi. 6; Iviii. 13; Hosea ix. 5). It would be difficult, 
indeed, to find a prophet after the exile who shows 
a deeper sense of the existence and sacred character of 
some ceremonial law than, for example, Hosea seems to 
do in one of his prophetic utterances (ix. 3-5 ; cf. Num. 
xix. 14 f.). 

The inference is imperative. These prophets refer, 
though it may be never so indirectly, to the extended 
legislation of the Pentateuch. There is no other su23- 

1 Even on the supposition that these passages are not from Isaiah, but from some one 
who h'ved during the exile, still they must have been spoken long before the supposed 
introduction of the " Code of the Priests" (444 is.c.)- 



3IO The PentatencJi: Its Origin and Strncture. 

posable circumstance which so well accounts for their 
habitual attitude, their prevailing current of thought 
and coloring of speech, as this overshadowing Sinaitic 
code founded on the covenant formally concluded 
through the mediation of Moses. Such a covenant, in 
the nature of the case, demanded an extended Torah to 
define its provisions. To this same Torah in general, 
we believe, Jeremiah refers in that prediction of future 
brighter days, when Jehovah should make another cove- 
nant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah ; 
not such a covenant as he made with their fathers ; but 
his law he would put in their inward parts and write it 
in their hearts (xxxi. 32). The idea of covenant and 
law, that is, are with him interchangeable, inseparable. 
To a Jewish mind, in fact, the one involved the other 
as truly as the idea of a sacrificer involved that of 
a sacrifice and an altar. 

But it is said that the earlier prophets show decided 
opposition to the offering of sacrifices in themselves 
considered, and therefore they cannot have known and 
acknowledged this Levitical code which prescribes 
them and contains the ritual by which they were after- 
ward to be governed. If such a claim were not made 
by men of learning and responsible positions we could 
hardly regard it as seriously meant. On its face it 
appears to us as nothing less than preposterous. 

Does Samuel show opposition to sacrifices when he 
says to the impatient and recreant Saul : "■ To obey is 
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of 
rams" (i Sam. xv. 22) } No more does Hosea when, in 
rebuke of gross excesses of externalism, he declares as 
the mind of the Lord : " For I desired mercy, and not 
sacrifice ; and the knowledge of God more than burnt- 
offerings " (vi. 6). There are no texts better adapted 



TJie Lazv and the Prop J lets. 3 1 1 

than these to illustrate the uniform attitude of the 
prophets in all periods of Israelitish history toward 
animal sacrifices. What they opposed was misdirec- 
tion, degenerating into absolute idolatry. It was an 
effort at prayer without a consecration of the will. It 
was a perverse tendency to look upon sacrifice as an 
opus operatum, something in itself sufficient for their 
spiritual needs. 

To enjoin the people to bring their offerings was 
wholly needless. To interdict it would have been as 
futile as to interdict the dews from gathering on 
Lebanon. What they did properly seek to do was to 
insist on the spiritual significance of these solemn 
rites ; to persuade men that the form without the 
substance was not only rubbish, but might be even 
a stench in the nostrils. Just as a minister of our day 
might say to men who offer their means for the spread 
of the gospel and the support of its institutions while 
personally standing aloof from it : "It is not your money 
we want, but you." Just as the apostle Paul actually 
said to his Corinthian sympathizers under similar cir- 
cumstances : *' I seek not yours, but you " (2 Cor. xii. 
14). So these men of God in the olden time in the 
midst of a tendency to pure exteriority, to exaggerate 
the matter of the flesh and blood of their offerings until 
they were made to represent everything in religion 
and, at the same time, to excuse everything in irre- 
ligion and idolatry, found no language but that of 
hyperbole that met the case.^ 

1 It was not formalism alone nor idolatry alone that the earlier prophets opposed, but 
both together, and especially the latter as a direct fruit of the former. So Delitzsch, in 
speaking of the schism of Jeroboam II. {Old Testament History of Redevtption 
p. 105 f.). truly says: " For out of dynastic considerations Jeroboam sought to perpetuate 
the independence of his dominions by destroying the religious unity of both kingdoms, 
and by introducing a new mode of worship, which, without cutting loose from Jehovah, 
met the heathen lusts and Egyptian propensities of the masses through the choice of a 



3 1 2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Do you think God hungry ? Will he eat the flesh of 
bulls or drink the blood of goats ? said the Psalmist, in 
view of a similar perverseness (1. 13 ; cf. xl. 7-10). No 
stronger language is found in any prophet on this sub- 
ject than in Isaiah.^ He compares the sacrifice of a 
lamb to the cutting off the neck of a dog, and in 
the same passage puts the offering of an oblation on 
the same level with the presentation of the blood of 
swine (Ixvi. 3). He cannot mean to reject and cast 
obloquy upon sacrifices themselves ; for he elsewhere 
represents them as praiseworthy and to be desired (xix. 
19). In the very context, he indulges, as here, in the 
language of strong hyperbole. " Where is the house," 
he asks, as representative of the Highest, "that ye 
will build for me " (Ixvi. i, 2)} Was he therefore 
an opponent of an outward temple } And in another 
place (i. 12, 13): "Who hath required this at your 
hands, to tread my courts } Bring no more vain 
oblations ; incense is an abomination unto me." 

Is this to be taken as prosy literalness 1 Then, in 
the same breath that the prophet discourages outward 
offerings and sacrifices he also favors the closing of the 
temple gates against his apostate countrymen. There 
is no argument to prove the one which will not just as 
really prove the other. 

Jeremiah, also, uses language on this point which is 
scarcely less emphatic. " To what purpose," he asks 

symbol derived from the Egyptian steer-god, and flattered the Ephraimitic national pride by 
thQ choice of ancient places celebrated through the great national reminiscences connected 
\vith thenj (i Kings xii. 26 sqq. ; Amos iv. 4; v. 5; viii. 14; Hosea iv. 15). This syn- 
cretistic state religion (Amos vii. 10, 13), with jts self-created priesthood and its servile, 
fawning prophets, is considered by the prophets of Jehovah in both kingdoms as an 
accursed apostasy; and so every fraternization of the kings of Judah with the kings of 
Israel excites the displeasure of the prophets, even when it is favorable to the interests of 
the kingdom of Judah." Cf. also Smend, Stud. n. Kriti'kcn, 1876, pp. 601, 602, 606. 

' If our critics' theory were true, one might expect, as Brcdenkamp has shown {ihiif. 
p. 78 f.), to find in Amos and Hosea the most m;irked antithesis noted between outwar.l 
pfiferings and inward piety rather than in Jsaiah, Micah, and Jercniiali. 



TJie Law and the Prophets. 3 1 3 

in one place, *' is there brought to me incense from 
Sheba and sweet cane from a far country ? Your burnt- 
offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet, 
unto me " (vi. 19, 20). When we consider the circum- 
stances of the case, that a wretched reliance on altar- 
gifts had in his day gone so far and been so mixed with 
idolatrous conceptions and practices that every city had 
its god, every street its shrine (xi. 13), and that a king 
of Israel in heathenish blindness had even ventured to 
offer up his own son (2 Kings xvi. 3 ; cf. Hos. xiii. 2 ; 
Mic. vi. 7), is it to be wondered at that a prophet speak- 
ing in the name of the Lord should say : " Your burnt- 
offerings are not acceptable, nor yoicr sacrifices sweet, 
unto me " ? Is it to be wondered at that sometimes 
he falls into the language of hyperbole or apparent 
paradox, so often found needful by our Lord 
himself ? 

How poor a vehicle is human speech at the best to 
carry to human hearts the inspired utterances of a 
prophet of God ! It seems sometimes to stagger with 
the weight that is put upon it. The words come forth 
bursting and out of order. And how utterly tame and 
inconsequent must the communications of a Jeremiah 
and an Isaiah have appeared even to us, if in circum- 
stances like theirs they had only prosily stated just 
what our critics require of them. 

That Jeremiah was no opponent of sacrifices when 
properly offered is clear from the fact that elsewhere he 
speaks of them as the crowning blessing of a happier 
day (xxxiii. 18, 21). How could he have been opposed 
to sacrifices ? He was himself a priest. More than 
this, he was contemporary and coadjutor of the very 
King Josiah in whose reign, according to our critics, 
the code of Deuteronomy with its provisions for every 



314 J^fi^ PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

form of animal-offerings was foisted on a heedless 
people. 

We find, indeed, no other spirit, touching ritual 
observances, ruling in any of these earlier prophecies 
than precisely that which dominates in those that 
follow the exile, when, as it is supposed, the ''Code 
of the Priests " came to fullest bloom. Zechariah, for 
example, made his appeal to these very men when a 
deputation from Bethel came to ask if fasting were still 
pleasing to God : '' (Do ye) not (know)," he pertinently 
inquires, ''the word which Jehovah hath proclaimed 
by means of the former prophets, when Jerusalem was 
inhabited and in prosperity } " 

"So declareth Jehovah of hosts, saying: 
Judgment ot truth judge ye, 
And mercy and compassion 
Do ye each to his brother.*" 

(vii. 9; cf. Isa. Iviii. 3 ff.). And Haggai takes greatest 
pains to show (ii. 11-14) that it is the ethical relation 
of the people to God that is vital. Consistency, 
consistency was his demand. Not alone holy flesh and 
punctilious conformity to sacerdotal rites ; but clean 
hands and a loyal heart. And Malachi, who closes up 
with great announcements and ringing appeals the 
goodly line of the ancient prophets of Israel, but 
reflects in this respect with undiminished splendor the 
spirit of all who had gone before him. Suddenly the 
Lord who was longed for would come to his temple. 
But who could abide the day of his coming .? He would 
appear as a refiner's fire. He would purge the sons of 
Levi as gold and silver, that their offerings to the Lord 
should be offerings of righteousness ; that Judah and 
Jerusalem should bring sacrifices that would be pleasant 



TJie Law and tJic PropJicts. 315 

to the Lord '* as in tJie days of old^ and as in former 
years'' (iii. 1-4).^ 

Is anything more needed to show what was the 
unchanging attitude of the Israelitish prophets in every 
period with respect to the development of religious 
life among the people ? The writer of Deuteronomy 
represents it as well as an Amos or an Isaiah when he 
says (x. 12): "And now, Israel, what doth thy God 
require of thee but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk 
in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul ? " 
Above all He represents it, who came as the last and 
greatest of the prophets, and who said, in sharp rebuke 
of the spurious ceremonialism of his day, putting its 
true interpretation on that now disputed text of Hosea : 
" Go and learn what that meaneth : I will have mercy, 
and not sacrifice." 

1 So, too, the Son of Sirach, in obvious dependence on the prophets and psahns, 
although living in the pent-up atmosphere of the later Judaism (Ecclus. xxxv. 1-12) : — 
" He that keepeth the law bringeth many offerings. 

He that taketh heed to the commandment offereth a thank-offering. 

He that requiteth a good turn offereth fine flour, 

And he that giveth alms sacrificeth praise. 

To depart from wickedness is a thing pleasing to the Lord, 

And to depart from unrighteousness is a propitiation. 

Thou shalt not appear empty before the Lord, 

For all these things are done because of the commandment. 

The offering of a just man maketh the altar fat. 

And the sweet savor thereof is before the Most High. 

The sacrifice of a just man is acceptable, 

And the memorial thereof shall not be forgotten. 

Give the Lord his honor with a friendly eye. 

And diminish not the first-fruits of thine hands. 

In all thy gifts show a cheerful countenance, 

And dedicate thy tithes with gladness. 

Give unto the Most High according as he hath given, 

And as thou hast gotten, give with a friendly eye. 

For the Lord is recompenser, 

And will give thee seven times as much. 

Do not think to corrupt with gifts, for such he will not receive; 

And trust not to unrighteous sacrifices, 

For the Lord is judge. 

And with him is no respect of persons." 



3i6 The PentateiicJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

What more natural than that these grand old prophets, 
if so be that they were true prophets of God, standing 
firm where priests and people had fallen away, should 
do this very work ? That they should see and should 
hold up the spiritual side of the Mosaic laws and 
institutions, insist upon it, emphasize it, and all the 
more because of the enormous exaggeration of the 
merely outward by their contemporaries ? Like every- 
thing else in this world of ours that has lived and made 
itself felt, the progress of the Israelitish religion was 
never in straight lines of growth, but always by a kind 
of action and reaction ; revealing mighty underlying 
forces that pushed it onward, but also other forces, only 
less mighty, that pushed it backward — a sort of systole 
and diastole that ever marks the throbbings of a deeper 
life in human affairs. 

And is not this fact that the prophets did the work 
they did, and stood together to do it, shoulder to 
shoulder, the shaggy Elijah and the tender Hosea of 
Israel beside Amos and the great Isaiah of Judah, 
politically divided, but one in aim and one in spirit 
against an intractable nation of formalists and idolaters, 
the strongest proof that they were specially, super- 
naturally moved of God so to do ? Does it not carry 
in itself the clearest condemnation of that theory of 
the merely natural development of the Old Testament 
religion which our critics would persuade us to adopt ?i 

^ It is not so easy to see how, on any just principle of development, the matter is 
helped for these critics by the supposition of a climax of spirituality in the prophets, and 
of sacerdotalism in the age that followed them. We might justly expect rather, first, that 
which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The remark of Smend still remains true, 
whatever his present attitude toward this theory may be {ibid. p. 638) : " Schon hienach 
mbchten wir die Bemerkung Duhms, dass die Prophetic abgestorben sei, als durch Esra 
das Gesetz in's Leben trat, dahin umkehren, dass das Gesetz kanonische Geltung erhielt, 
weil die Prophetic abstarb." Just in this direction, too, points that relatively isolated 
text in the Book of Proverbs (xxix. 18) : " Where there is no vision the people are in 
disorder; but he that kccpcth the law, happy is he." 



The Lazv and the Prophets. 317 

- And so, without resorting to any of the numerous 
collateral arguments which might be urged against the 
theory we have been considering, like the uniform testi- 
mony of the oldest witnesses and the repeated confirm- 
atory references of Jesus and his apostles ; without 
calling special attention to the wholesale dislocations, 
eliminations, conjectural readings, and charges of 
duplicity against Old Testament writers which would 
be necessitated by the change proposed ; without 
taking advantage of the naive admissions of some of 
the ablest of this class of critics showing that their 
objections to the traditional view, after all, inhere less 
in the documents themselves than in their own minds 
and their own invincible prepossessions,^ we find that, 
tested by the reasoning on which its supporters them- 
selves most rely, this concerted effort to face about the 
preexilian prophets and reconstruct on other principles 
the history of Israel is a signal failure. 

^ As, for instance, Wellhaiisen {^Geschichte, i. p. ii) : " Passages out of Amos and 
Hosea may be adduced svhfeh are supposed to show acquaintance with the ' Code of the 
Priests ' ; upon him, however, who holds them to be earlier than it, they can make no 
impression." And Stade (as quoted by Professor Duff in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 1882, p. 
392) : " But I am convinced that the controversy will never be settled by an analysis of 
the Pentateuch. The view taken of the Pentateuch will depend, on the one hand, on the 
view taken of the critical structure of the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings; and on 
the other, on the theological valuation of prophecy. 



IX. 

THE LAW AND THE HISTORICAL BOOKS. 



If the Books of Chronicles were admitted to be 
genuine and authentic, the criticism that makes a con- 
siderable part of the Pentateuch of post-exilian origin 
would, by its own admission, be impossible. These 
books assume the existence in every period of the 
history of this same supposed post-exilian portion ; that 
is, especially, the so-called " Code of the Priests." 
Their account of David's reign and that of his suc- 
cessors down to the point where the Book of Fzra 
takes up and continues the narrative is particularly 
characterized by the dominance of Levitical institutions 
and laws. Among the long lists of genealogies with 
which the history is introduced, that of the tribe of 
Levi is given a noteworthy prominence. ^ David's 
recovery of the ark and the imposing ceremonies 
attending its introduction into Jerusalem require not 
less than three crowded chapters of description and they 
are fortified by dates, extended lists of proper names, 
and even the form of service observed on the occasion 
(i Chron. xiii., xv., xvi.). Four other chapters are 
devoted to the classification of the Levites and their 
assignment to appropriate duties in the temple service 
(i Chron. xxiii.-xxvi.). In one instance (2 Chron. vii. 

i"Ueberall," says Wellhausen, Geschichte, i. p. 223, " wird vorausgesetzt, dass 
Israel wahrend der ganzen Konigzeit nach den zwolf Stammen organisirt gewesen sei; 

bckanntlich ist die.se Voraussctzung grundfalsch." 



The Lazv and the Historical Books. 319 

7-9) a direct effort seems to be made to harmonize 
a statement of the earlier history (i Kings viii. 65 f.) 
with the Mosaic law of the feast of tabernacles. 

It is generally recognized, indeed, that a chief aim of 
the compiler of Chronicles was no other than to direct 
special attention to such periods and events in Israel- 
itish history as would best illustrate the ceremonial law 
and show what benefits had arisen from such obser- 
vance. And the one circumstance that here chiefly 
distinguishes the partisans of Graf and Wellhausen 
from other scholars is that they regard this aim as 
inconsistent with a truthful narrative ; look upon the 
history in so far as it has this coloring and is controlled 
by this purpose as pure fabrication. They not only 
assert this in every form of emphatic declaration, but 
carry it to the point of a contemptuous depreciation and 
ridicule of the Chronicler. ^ It is as precarious a pro- 
cedure from a logical point of view as, we believe, it is 
unjustified by the contents of the books. 

It is well known that a principal reason given for 
denying the existence of the ceremonial law previous 
to the exile is the alleged silence of the historical books 
concerning it. But here is a book that is full of refer- 
ences to this law, makes it a direct object to emphasize 
and honor it, and so restores the imperiled balance of 
the biblical narrative. It provides the information we 
were looking for. 

The first intimation of the existence of the planet 
Neptune came through the observed perturbations of 

1 " Die Chronik dagegen legt das Gesetz — und zwai- im voUen Umfange das ganze pen- 
tateuchische Gesetz, namentlich den darin dominirenden Priestercodex — nicht bloss ihrem 
Urteil iiber die Vergangenheit zu Grunde sondern dicJitet aiich die Thatsachoi in jeae 
von jeher giiltige Norm um und denkt sich das alte hebraische Volk genau nach dem 
Muster der spateren jlidischen Gemeinde, a!s einheitlich gegliederte Hierokratie, mit 
einem streng centralizirten Cultus von uniformer Legitimitat an der heiligen Statte zu 
Jerusalem." — See Weilhausen, ibid. p. 197. 



320 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

its companion planets. And mathematical reckonings, 
on the basis of heaven's first law of order, won their 
secret from the stars. So here, the Old Testament 
history were an enigma unless Samuel and the Kings 
have their complement in Chronicles. It must be a 
very convincing argument, therefore, and one untainted 
by the suspicion of ulterior aims, that can impeach the 
authority of so opportune and reasonable a book. 

To say that an historian cannot have a special point 
of view and yet confine himself to facts is surely absurd. 
To write history with a purely didactic purpose, singling 
out events and characters best subserving that purpose, 
is as legitimate an aim as any other. What higher use 
can history have than to instruct us .? In itself it 
involves no distortion of the truth to display its different 
aspects, as, for example, the four evangelists have done 
in their fourfold narrative of the life of Jesus Christ. 
And that the Chronicler, in view of the lack of promi- 
nence given to the ceremonial law in other histories of 
Israel, current then and since, should deliberately set 
out with the object of supplementing them in this 
respect is not only extremely natural, but it is highly 
creditable to his judgment. 

It cannot be denied that the work he produced is 
based on original written documents, since he quotes 
them by name. It cannot be denied that from a merely 
historical standpoint, ecclesiasticism aside, his book is 
of immense value. Many are the missing links which 
we discover in his pages.^ Especially as it concerns 

1 " He alone relates Asa's war with Zcrah the Ethiopian (2 Chron. xiv.),the invasion of 
Jerusalem by hordes of Pliilistines and Arabians in the time of Jelioram (2 Chron. xxi. 
16 ff., important for the understanding of Obadiah, Joel, and Amos), the details of the 
attack made upon Judah by leagued Syrians and Ephraimites (2 Chron. xxviii. 5, 16 f.), 
the victory of Jehosaphat over the allied neigliboring peoples (2 Chron. xx., important 
for the liistory of the Psahns). Through him we hue fuller inf.irmation respecting 
Ziklag and Hebron as the starting-places of David's dominion (i Chron. xi., xii.). And 



The Law and the Historical Books. 321 

our knowledge of the prophets, of whom we have so 
little information from any quarter, is his work of rare 
significance. Six of these devoted men, Oded, Azariah, 
Hanani, Jahaziel son of Zechariah, Eliezer son of 
Dodavah, Zechariah son of Jehoida, and their vast 
influence on the affairs of their times would be 
otherwise quite unknown to us.^ 

One-sided, as it may be called, largely subjective in 
character, stamped with the spirit and phraseology of 
a later day, even sometimes tinged with extravagance 
and hyperbole in its style, as every candid reader must 
acknowledge, the work of the Chronicler is, notwith- 
standing, a faithful documentary record. The discre- 
pancies and contradictions which have been charged 
against it may be readily explained from the peculiar 
point of view of the compiler, or, in the case of 
numbers and the like, from corruptions in the text. In 
short, over against the strained efforts and uncritical 
insinuations of Wellhausen, it will suffice to place the 
recent opinion of August Dillmann, who will not be 
suspected of being governed by the exigencies of a 
theory. "■ Chronicles," he says,^ "is thoroughly reliable 
history, being drawn from the official records of the 
Israelites, which explains the numerous instances in 
which it coincides, even verbally, with Kings ; and 
where it differs in names, etc., can be explained by 
textual corruptions either in Chronicles, Kings, or 
their common source. But the point of view is priestly, 
and therefore the author dwells at greater length upon 
those features of the history which are ecclesiastical. 
. . . The object of the writer was not so much to retell 

of all that the better kings did for the cult, for popular instruction, for the administration 
of justice and the defence of the empire, the knowledge derived from the Chronicles is 
incomparably greater than from the Books of Samuel and Kings." — Franz Delitzsch, in 
the Sunday-School Ti/nes for November 24, 1833. 

1 Q{. Pelitzsch, ibid. ^ Herzog's Eiicyk., 2le Aufi., s.v. " Chronik." 



322 TJic PciitatciLcJi: Its Origin and Structure. 

the story of Israel, as, from the rich historical stores at 
his command, to select those portions which related 
more particularly to the history of worship, in order to 
demonstrate to his compatriots how precious this legacy 
was, and how fundamental to the existence and pros- 
perity of the new state arising from the ashes of the 
old." 1 

But let the argument from Chronicles, decisive as it 
must be regarded, be for the present waived ; the 
remaining historical books, without the support of that 
one which seems to have been especially charged with 
the service, offer sufficient evidence that they were 
antedated by all the Pentateuch codes in all their 
essential features. 

Attention is invited, in the first place, to the peculiar 
moral atmosphere in which the history moves and its 
one invariable point of view. It is the more significant 
that, to such an extent, it must be recognized as an 
environment, something that cannot be accounted for 
simply by the letter of the text, that cannot be con- 
jured away by changes in the text. Just as, for 
example, in the history of our own country written 
subsequent to the Revolution, or the civil conflict of 
twenty years ago, one might expect to find a tacit 
recognition of these overshadowing events in the point 
of view of a writer of later American history, a tone 
and spirit discovering itself in the way he writes, 
though never definitely expressed in what he writes ; 
so in the history of Israel, we may look for something 
answering to this after such momentous national crises 
as the giving of the Law and the subsequent entrance 
of Israel as a commonwealth of priests upon the 

^ Cf. Strack, in Zockler's Hatidhuch, etc. p. 163, and Brown, in the Andover Rrview 
for April, 1884, " The Books of Chronicles," etc. 



The Lazv and the Historical Books. 323 

promised possession of Canaan. And we shall not 
look in vain. 

Observe the general plan on which the Books of 
Judges, Samuel, and the Kings were conceived and 
constructed as a whole. They are closely connected 
histories. First Samuel begins where the Book of 
Judges leaves off, and evidently the choice and shaping 
of the material of the former book were with definite 
reference to the latter, to which it appears as a sequel. 
The same is true of the Books of Kings in relation to 
Samuel. There is a clear purpose and a unity of 
purpose throughout. Like the plant that takes its pre- 
destined shape while the law and forces of its growth 
are out of sight, the material of these books assumed 
its present form, both in general and particular, in 
obedience to certain fixed ideas which are presupposed 
rather than announced ; or, are largely presupposed as 
well as, now and then, announced. An impression is 
carried along from chapter to chapter which is as real 
as the aroma of aT flower and almost as intangible. 

It is something of which the historian assumes his 
readers to be as conscious as he himself is. His tone 
is never apologetic. His object is never entertainment. 
He seems always to state facts with a view to enforcing 
them. The narrative is in no case a bare record of 
events. It is pragmatical, didactic throughout. Just 
like the Book of Genesis and only in a less degree 
just like the Books of Chronicles, it is made use of as 
the channel for a higher truth, which, after all, is under- 
stood to be the principal truth. To fail to recognize 
this, indeed, would be to lose the key to the history. 
One may call it an ethical coloring, or a theocratic bias, 
or what he will, but the influence is always there. It 
makes the impression upon us of something like a 



324 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

judicial process. The historian is giving in his 
testimony. To hear it is to decide at once upon its 
bearing. 1 

Israel appears everywhere as the one chosen people 
sustaining peculiar relations to Jehovah and owing him 
peculiar duties. There is a solidarity of interests and 
of responsibility. A common and universal obligation 
is recognized. A silent appeal is taken to an assumed 
standard. Each new character as he appears is faith- 
fully judged by it, and finds his place accordingly among 
the noble or ignoble of the historic line. 

How emphatically is this true in the lives of 
Samuel, Saul, and David and the story of their mutual 
relationships ! The weightier factor in their histories 
is the one out of sight. No handwriting on the wall is 
needed to inform us of the first king of Israel that he 
has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. 
There is a line of conduct that is at once felt to be con- 
sonant with the principles that, from beginning to end, 
govern in the composition. There is another line of 
conduct, and it may be even the prevailing one, that is 
felt to be out of harmony with those principles, betrays 
a hateful dissonance not only with them, but with what 
are supposed to be the better sympathies of the reader. 

But, as I have said, we are not left simply to infer 
what the point of view of these books is, most impor- 
tant as that which is to be inferred from their structure 
and uniform coloring must be regarded in our discus- 
sion ; it is also written boldly out in the history and 
even defined by positive statements. And though such 

1 Cf. Conder, The Origin of the Hebrew Religion, p. 13 f.: " The feature of the 
Old Testament we have been considering is not peculiar to Genesis or to the Pentateuch. 
It pervades the Hebrew Scriptures. It is not that history is juade the uiciiinin of 
religious instruction. That would be a most narrow and mistaken view of the matter. It 
is that religion is shown as the soul of history; the supreme rc.nlity and central power in 
human affairs; the deepest foundation of human life," 



The Lazv and the Historical Books. 325 

statements may be relatively few, like the particles of 
iron in the spring, the whole current of the narrative 
has been impregnated and tinctured by them. The 
Book of Judges, for example, opens with a detailed 
review of the causes that produced the desperate state 
of things it is led to describe ; why after Moses and 
Joshua there should arise such men as Jephthah 
and Samson; after organization and law, misrule 
and anarchy. There had been wholesale defection. A 
generation had arisen which " knew not the Lord nor 
yet the works which he had done for Israel " (Judges 
ii. 10). There are, naturally, tribal difficulties. Evi- 
dences of a very imperfect civilization are not sup- 
pressed. The great mistake and the great crime, 
however, is everywhere stamped as apostasy. The 
people, it is true, are not disintegrated altogether. 
Sometimes they even act as the " congregation of the 
Lord" in the spirit of the Mosaic institutions (Judges 
xix.-xxi.) ; but the leaven of transgression had every- 
where left its mark. They had forsaken, it is said, 
" the Lord God of their fathers who brought them out 
of the land of Egypt" (ii. 12). They had "provoked" 
the Lord and his anger was hot against them. They 
had " turned out of the way " in which their fathers 
had walked. They '' ceased not from their own doing, 
nor from their stubborn way." They had ''transgressed 
the covenant" of God which he had "commanded their 
fathers " (ii. passim). There can be no doubt, in short, 
how the writer of the Book of Judges regarded the 
people of Israel even in that early age : they were, in 
his eyes, a race of backsliders. They had consciously 
lapsed from acknowledged standards and been faithless 
to solemn vows. And their sins are with him just as 
much sins of folly and wilfulness, are painted every 



326 TJie Peiitatetich: Its Origin and Strnctnre. 

whit as black as are those of a Jeroboam or a 
Manasseh in the later books. 

Moreover, we are not obliged to change our position 
as we move down into the Books of Samuel and the 
Kings. We not only feel that we are in the same 
atmosphere, but whenever the history speaks, it is in 
the same ground-tone. Samuel succeeds to Eli and his 
unfaithful sons, for the alleged reason that they fall 
below the standard which, as they well know, God has 
set for them. The warm friendship springing up at 
first between the prophet Samuel and the youthful 
king of goodly stature is changed later to estrangement, 
not because of merely personal differences, but because 
of the king's failure to respond to certain moral obliga- 
tions to which it is assumed that prophet and king are 
equally amenable. "And Samuel said unto Saul, 
'Thou hast rejected the word of the Lord^ and the 
Lord hath rejected thee.' . . . And Samuel came no 
more to see Saul until the day of his death ; neverthe- 
less, Samuel mourned for Saul " (i Sam. xv. 26, 35). 

What is it that so sharpens the contrast between Saul 
and David, leads the historian to dwell with evident 
relish on some peculiar incidents in the latter's history.? 
He sees in him a worthier instrument of the Provi- 
dential purpose. David recognizes a divine order of 
things in Israel and bows to it. In his earliest public 
appearance as the champion of his brethren against 
Goliath his significant language is : " Who is this 
tLncircnmciscd Philistine that he should defy the armies 
of the living God } " And again, later : ''Thou comest 
to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield ; 
but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, 
the God of the armies of Israel whom thou hast defied " 

* The *' word of tke l.ord " here, be it observed, is in the form of a Pentateuch law (of. 
Dent. xxY. 17-19). 



The Law and the Historical Books. 327 

(i Sam. xvii. 26, 45). It is much that this language 
says ; it is still more that it suggests. 

So when he flees from the fury of Saul, it is to 
Samuel that he resorts and unbosoms himself (i Sam. 
xix. 18). On another occasion it is to the priest Abim- 
elech that he escapes from the dangers that environ 
him at court (i Sam. xxi. 2). Later, the prophet Gad 
directs his flight (i Sam. xxii. 5). And in still another 
emergency he unites with his the fortunes of the priest 
Abiathar {ibid. vs. 20). 

This power behind the throne in Israel, how noticea- 
bly it shows itself and how sympathetically throughout 
the life of David ! And when led of God, he finally 
goes up to Hebron to be crowned, his first thought, as 
king of a reunited people, is for the neglected ark at 
Kirjath-jearim. In his palace of cedar, too, and amidst 
the almost ideal glory that crowned the closing period 
of his reign of forty years, it is solicitude for the tem- 
ple, the Deuteronomic conception of a worthy sanctuary 
for the God of Israel, that prompts his highest efforts. 

Much has been made of the strong Davidic coloring 
which, as all must acknowledge, has been given to these 
standard histories of Samuel and the Kings. But in 
no merely partisan import are they Davidic. There 
breathes quite another spirit in them than that of hero- 
worship. They are Davidic because David was Israel- 
itic in the historic and highest sense ; because he made 
so largely his goal that which, if the history be true, 
was also the goal of every godly priest, prophet, and 
loyal son of Abraham, naturally, not excepting the one 
who penned the records. They are Davidic because 
the David of the history is the David of the Psalter, 
to whom "the statutes of the Lord ase right, rejoicing 
the heart " (xix. 9). 

So, too, when the affairs of the disrupted kingdom 



328 The Pentatetich: Its Origin and Structure. 

pass under review, we are left in just as little uncer- 
tainty respecting the attitude of the historian. What- 
ever different hands may, supposably, from first to last, 
have been engaged on the composition, there is but one 
point of view discoverable in its present form. The 
change of dynasties, the love or the hate of kings, the 
devotion or the disgust of a fickle people work no alter- 
ation in that. To do evil in the sight of the Lord and 
to do right in his sight have not, severally, one sense in 
Solomon's day and another in Ahab's or Josiah's or 
Zedekiah's. Whatever charges may be laid against the 
responsible historian of i and 2 Kings, a want of con- 
sistency in his historical judgment concerning public 
men and public events cannot be made one of them. 
To the standard by which, for example, he tries the 
principles of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who caused 
Israel to sin, he is undeviatingly true to the end. 

With peculiar interest he seems to linger on the 
description of the temple and the services of dedica- 
tion. He prefers to speak of the life of Solomon when 
it is at its best ; but he disguises nothing. He tells 
also of his love for strange women, his idolatry and 
moral degeneracy. He knows how to discriminate in 
men's conduct between what is really good and what is 
only relatively so. *' Jehoash," he says, "did what was 
right 1 in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein 
Jehoida the priest instructed him. But the high-places 
were not taken away" (2 Kings xii. 3, 4). Amaziah 
"did what was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not 
like David his father ; he did according to all things as 
Joash his father did. But the high-places were not 
taken away " {ibid. xiv. 3). 

And when the culmination of calamity finally comes 

* This expression, so frequent in Kings, appears to be derived from Deuteronomy (xii. 
28; xiii. 18, 19, and often), and in both books seems to imply a legal standard. 



The Lazv and tJie Historical Books. 329 

to the northern kingdom, it is only in harmony with his 
position from the beginning that he makes it the 
occasion for showing that it is the predicted and 
natural result of forbidden courses, the lightning-stroke 
which the people and their rulers had themselves chal- 
lenged. " In . the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of 
Assyria took Samaria and carried Israel away into 
Assyria" (2 Kings xvii. 6). "And it was so because 
the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their 
God who had brought them out of the land of Egypt " 
(vs. 7). They "would not hear, but hardened their 
necks, like the neck of their fathers" (vs. 13, 14). 
" And they rejected his statutes and his covenant which 
he made with their fathers " (vs. 15). "Therefore the 
Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them out 
of his sight : there was none left but the tribe of Judah 
only" (vs. 18). And then, attesting his impartiality, 
proving that it is from no merely partisan or Judaistic 
standpoint that he speaks, he frankly adds : " And 
Judah kept not the commandents of the Lord their 
God ; but walked in the statutes of Israel which they 
made " (vs. 19). 

There is no need of further illustration. No one 
will attempt to dispute either the uniformity or the 
definiteness of the moral lesson which has been 
emblazoned on the historical books of the Old Testa- 
ment. None can doubt what impression the one 
historian, or the historians many, meant to make, and 
to make powerful and deep, upon the Israel of their 
time. The one indictment of their countrymen under 
many charges is for apostasy ; the one summons 
amidst a multitude of voiced or unvoiced appeals along 
the whole line is to repentance and reform. 

What, now, have the critics who concede no written 



330 The Pefttateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

law to Israel before the close of the seventh century to 
say concerning it ? It is just what we should expect 
to find on the supposition, and only on the supposition, 
that something answering to the alleged institutions 
of Moses arose in the age of Moses. I do not say 
that, of itself, it proves their existence then in their 
present Pentateuch form. For that other facts will 
be found to vouch. But until itself disproved, it does 
prove the reality of a Mosaic era and a paramount 
Pentateuch influence, if one may so speak, in the 
shaping of the historic Israel. It is safe to infer the 
fountain from the stream. And to the same degree, 
on the other hand, it serves to disprove the rise of 
essential Mosaism in any period subsequent to that 
which we have passed in review. 

The issue, therefore, is plainly before us. How is it 
met by the champions of what is called " scientific " 
criticism .'' Not, by any means, by a denial of the testi- 
mony, at least in its general tenor and outline. It is 
rather by an unwarranted attack on the character of the 
witness. The text, it is said, which gives us these 
results is far from trustworthy. Much of it is purely 
mythical, especially that of Judges ; while the best of 
it is of a composite character in which old and new, 
good and bad, are everywhere almost inextricably 
commingled. It is the critic, it will be observed, the 
advocate, who constitutes himself also the supreme 
judge to decide, at sight, what is real and what is false, 
what is in place and what is out of place. He asks for 
no consensus of opinions. He quotes nobody. He 
expects his ex cathedra judgment to be accepted. ^ 

*Cf. Dwinell, in Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1884, p. 340 f.: " Everything in the histor- 
ical books, as we have them, from the time of Moses down, which conflicts with this 
theory, and which intimates the necessity of one phice of worsliip or the existence of a 
priesthood as a separate order from the Levites, is tlierefore summarily branded as of later 



The Law and tJie Historical Books. 331 

He is modest enough, however — or is it some other 
motive than self-distrust that prompts him? — to 
acknowledge that sometimes even he is at a loss. The 
fabric has been too cunningly woven even for him. 
The rotten thread of imposture is there, he affirms, 
to vitiate the stock ; but it cannot with certainty 
always be disentangled and removed. 

Suppose that we object to such a course of reasoning 
as both unscientific and unhistorical. Suppose that we 
point to the fatal results of it in the discredit that 
is brought upon the only supposed reliable history of 
Israel that the critics have left to us. Suppose, espe- 
cially, that we bewail the violence that is thereby done 
to what may be termed the sacred element in the 
ancient Scriptures, The criticism of Julius Well- 
origin and set aside from being evidence in the case. And it is the high function of his- 
torical criticism to go through the nominal records of those ancient times, assort their 
contents, and declare authoritatively when the several pares were written, what portions 
were original and what interpolations — a task which is not so difficult as it might seem 
to be, inasmuch as each part must have been written, it is assumed, at a time when it 
would dovetail in with the stage of religious knowledge which the theory accords to the 
people at that period. The method and rate of religious progress are assumed, and the 
facts are interpreted under that, instead of inferring the method and rate of religious 
progress from the historical records as they have come down to us. The history must be 
assorted and adapted to the theory of progress, rather than the theory of progress shaped 
to the history. This makes the task comparatively easy, and at the same time proclaims 
the greatness and sagacity of the historical critic." Again, p. 347: " Moreover, they 
are involved in another difficulty. By discarding the account in the historical books 
detailing the practice of the ceremonial in the early times, and holding that it sprang up 
under the influence of the prophets, they have this strange phenomenon on their hands: 
tiic introduction among a historical people of a revolutionary ritualism, not only with no 
record of its introduction, and in an age showing no signs of invention or creation apart 
from the prophets, whose influence was in another direction, but with no recorded 
historical preparations for it. It sprang fullgrown into power, not like Minerva out of 
the brain of Jupiter, but out of the womb of historical night and nothingness, historically 
unannounced, uncaused; and it sprang into such instant dazzling and bewildering 
influence as to send its glamour back over the past and cause a new history of the pre- 
ceding times to be written in which it should have the appearance of all the gravity and 
dignity of hoary age. And this is done in the name of historical criticism, by those who 
think that sacred history is an orderly and natural flow of events, and is to be explained 
on rational principles; discrediting the records we have of the antecedents of ritualism, 
they bring it in at a bound as a new creation, and with such a weird, supernatural power 
as. to charm all the historical records into a false representation of its antiquity! This 
is another instance of facility of credulity in those who lack faith," 



332 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strnctnre. 

hausen and his asssociates is appalled by no appari- 
tions of evil that it has conjured up. If it feel a 
reverence for theocratic institutions and the hand of 
God in history, it betrays little. It is the very religious 
element in the records that is stigmatized as most com- 
pletely spurious. It is the very man who says such 
sharp things about apostasy, is continually recalling 
the covenant and other exodus experiences, and has the 
name of the God of Israel oftenest on his lips, who is 
pronounced the greatest hypocrite of all. It is he who 
has put the simple facts and characters of an uncertain 
period in a Deuteronomic or exilian uniform and made 
them do battle for ideas that are really foreign to them. 
It would be scarcely possible, in short, to exaggerate 
the stains of corruption which Wellhausen and his 
co-laborers find penetrating the records in every signifi- 
cant part. The unity of Israel, for example, of which 
so much is made in the books, is, as he alleges, but a 
theoretic unity, invented to base upon it the notion of 
a theocracy. In the genuine tradition it did not exist, 
but only in the devised one. At the bottom of a 
false continuity, there lies a false generalization. Even 
the necessary sins, it is claimed, have been artfully 
provided to meet the exigencies of an artfully concocted 
religious narrative.^ Of the account of the repentance 
of Israel at Mizpeh in response to the aj^peals of 
Samuel, where they are said to have put away Baalim 
and Ashtaroth to serve the Lord only (i Sam. vii. 3 £f.), 
Wellhausen declares that there is not a *' true word in 
it." It was fabricated with a motive and that motive 
was to idealize Samuel. This prophet was esteemed a 
pattern saint (Jer. xv. i). What more natural than 
that he should be assigned the chief place in the 

1 Geschichie, i. p. 243 f. 



The Lazv and tJic Historical Books. 



000 



theocracy, that is, in that religious commonwealth into 
which the later Judaism deftly transmogrified its earlier 
counterpart. Actual theocracy there was none ; it had 
been introduced bodily into the history by revision. 
Grace and guilt are there made to play their part in the 
course of events like mechanical forces. Its super- 
naturalism is simple pedantry ; its characters and its 
admonitions are holy or otherwise, -"according to 
receipt." Nothing of the kind, we may be sure, 
existed in the original narrative. In that, Israel 
appeared just like any other ancient people.^ 

To a logic of this sort we know of no surer or 
speedier antidote than to display it. The critic resorts 
to a veritable coup de grace ; he settles the question by 
removing it outside the domain of discussion for believ- 
ing men. Among the circle of readers to whom this 
series of papers will come it would certainly occur to 
very few to hesitate between even the extreme posi- 
tions of the old theology and the alternative which is 
here presented. 

Attention is invited, accordingly, in the second place, 
to the uniformity of what may be called fundamental 
religious ideas as they appear in the historical books, 
when compared with those of the Pentateuch and of 
the prophets. They show no break in the continuity. 
The potential factors of the sacred history are equally 
those of the lawgiver and of the seer, who is supposed 
to have been a law unto himself. It is an extraordinary 
circumstance if the criticism we are criticizing, what- 
ever its method, has reached just conclusions. 

Its claim is that the Israelitish religion is but one 
of the principal ancient religions, having a like origin 
and governed by precisely similar laws of growth. Its 

1 Ibid. p. 259 f., 245 ff. 



334 ^/^^' PcntateucJi: Its Origin and Strtccture. 

alleged particular election is an untenable hypothesis. 
There is nothing whatever supernatural about it. In 
fact, this people was but one of the several Hebrew 
tribes that pressed into Canaan. After bitter conflicts, 
on the principle of the survival of the fittest, it came, 
finally, to absorb and dominate the rest. It has no 
actual history, save from the period of the judges. 
Its beginnings were as rude as the rudest. Its God, 
Jehovah, was, at first, a tribal deity only, holding to 
Israel simply the relation that a Chemosh did to the 
Moabites. Sacred stones and trees long continued 
to be worshiped without a suspicion of wrongdoing. 
Gradually by a peculiar reversal of moral outlook what 
had been the sanctioned and legitim.ate was stigmatized 
as idolatrous and criminal. The principal agents in 
this revolution were the prophets of the eighth century 
and their successors. So-called Mosaic institutions are 
the post-exilian blossom of a very small Mosaic germ 
which it is not easy to trace beyond the period of the 
earlier kings. ^ 

Such is the theory. Plausible it surely is per se^ that 
is, ignoring the historical books as history and admit- 
ting them only as half-mythical stories such as the 
beginnings of other religions show. It falls in with 
popular ideas and current tendencies of thought. But 
the point to be determined is. Does it harmonize with 
the facts t Does it fit the records of the biblical books 
as we have them t or can it, without positive violence, 
be adjusted to them t The test we are now to apply is 
a perfectly fair one and, in its sphere, may be regarded 
as decisive. Were the ruling ideas of the prophets by 
which they are supposed to have revolutionized the 
religion of Israel original and elemental with them .^ or 

iCf. Kuencn, Tke Religion of Israel, \. Inlioil. and chaps, i., iv., v; Duhm, Die 
Thcologiedcr PropJieteti, Prolcgoin. etc.; Static, Geschichtcd. Volkcs Is., p. 127 fi". 



TJie Law and the Historical Books. 335 

were they, in kind, also regarded as fundamental in 
the Patriarchal and royal periods ? 

Take, for example, the doctrine that God is one. Is 
there any evidence whatever that the Jewish people 
were at any time anything else, ideally, than monothe- 
ists ? Isaiah represents the God of Israel as saying, 
" I am the first, and I the last ; and beside me there is 
no God" (Is. xliv. 6). How does that differ in senti- 
ment from the great announcement which prefaces the 
Decalogue : " Thou shalt have no other gods before 
me " .^ It is but an echo of Moses' words in the land 
of Moab : " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one 
Lord" (Deut. vi. 4) ! " The Lord he is God ; there is 
none else beside him. The Lord he is God in heaven 
above and upon the earth beneath" (Deut. iv. 35, 39). 
And the whole history moves on the same level. That 
there was an ugly trend toward idolatry for nearly a 
thousand years is not denied ; no effort is made by any 
biblical writer to conceal the fact. It is clear, however, 
that it generally took the form of a false worship of 
Jehovah rather than of a direct worship of other deities ; 
it was a transgression of the second commandment 
rather than of the first. There were, it is true, idola- 
ters of a grosser sort ; another Israel within Israel, 
which dropped down to the plane of all that was base 
in the surrounding heathenism. It is shown as well by 
the strenuousness of reiterated prohibitions, as by the 
details of the narrative. But, unless the whole repre- 
sentation of the historical books is false to the core, 
the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he who deliv- 
ered from Egyptian oppression, carried Israel as on 
eagle's wings during the wanderings of the wilderness, 
dispossessed the Canaanites, alternately punished and 
delivered the redeemed nation in its earlier lapses, 



336 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

raised up and stood by his servant Samuel, so that he 
appears almost like a heavenly apparition on the sacred 
page, was the glory and reward of such reigns as those 
of David, Asa, and Josiah, as he was the terror of such 
as Saul's, Jeroboam's, and Ahab's, was, from beginning 
to end, one and the same God, not less in the deeper 
consciousness of the people of Israel than in that of 
their teachers and leaders. 

Moreover, this one God is represented everywhere as 
the only one of his kind, the God, the omnipotent, the 
eternal, the holy God, Creator, and universal Governor. 
There may be a difference of emphasis as one rises 
from the phraseology of the Law and the relative calm- 
ness of the historian to the impassioned fervor of pro- 
phet and poet ; but there is no difference in the essential 
point of view. There is nowhere discoverable, from first 
to last, a stage of transition, or any actual traces of one, 
where the idea of the alleged national God is found 
passing over into that of the supreme God. It appears 
nowhere as a mere adumbration, but always full-orbed 
and complete. Let the improbability, for example, be 
assumed that some post-exilian scribe stamped on the 
first verse of the Bible the great and many-sided 
thought : " In the beginning God created the heavens 
and the earth." We hear, too, the devout Hannah, at 
the time when Israel was just emerging from the politi- 
cal chaos which followed the conquest, echoing it in 
her prayer : " The pillars of the earth are Jehovah's, and 
he hath set the world upon them" (i Sam. ii. 8). It is 
Isaiah, it is true, who suggests that there is but one 
answer to the inquiry : '' Who hath created these 
things that bring out their host by number?" (xl. 26). 
But the so-called Jehovistic narrator of Genesis (xviii. 
14), in the breadth of his representation surely puts 



The Law and the Historical Books. 337 

himself close beside him in the question : " Is there 
anything too hard for Jehovah ? " 

We are told that it was with the later prophets that 
the notion of the divine holiness had its origin and that 
monotheism itself, in its best sense, was but a fruit of 
their peculiarly ethical conception of the divine nature.^ 
Yet it is in the alleged earliest document of the Pen- 
tateuch (Ex. xix. 6, that is, JE) that God is made to say to 
Israel : " Ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, 
and an holy nation." It is there that we find the 
sentiment worthy of the period of Israel's spiritual 
bloom : " Who is like thee, O Lord, among the gods ? 
Who is like thee glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, 
doing wonders.?" (Ex. xv. 11). Audit can have been 
only a deep consciousness of this same awful attribute 
of the God he served that lent its mysterious power to 
the finger of the prophet Nathan when he confronted 
the guilty David (2 Sam. xii. 7), and that gave its 
keenest barb to Elijah's challenge of Ahab : ''I have 
not troubled Israel ; but thou and thy father's house, in 
that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord 
and gone after Baals " (i Kings xviii. 18).^ 

So, too, as it respects the matter of worship through 
images, the effort to show that there was a gradual 
development in the historic Israel from mere fetishism 
up to the spiritual representations of an Isaiah (xxxi. 
3), based on such facts as the Ark of the Covenant 
with its cherubim, circumcision, the dedication of the 
first-born, and such anomalies as the worship of Aaron's 
golden calf, the use of ephod, teraphim, and the like,^ 
fails, not alone in view of the direct prohibition of the 
second commandment, but of the inability of anybody 

1 See Kuenen, The Religion of Is., i. p. 43 ff. 

2 Cf. also a portion of Solomon's prayer of dedication ("i Kings viii. 31, 32). 

3 Kuenen, ibid. i. chap. iv. 



338 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Strncture. 

to point to a single instance in the history where visible 
representations of the Deity are actually approved by 
responsible leaders or even seem to be in harmony 
with the deeper religious feeling of Israel. 

Nothing could be more unfair than to infer the ideal 
aims of any people simply from what was more or less 
customary in it, much less from what is claimed by 
every historical writer to be irregular in its customs. 
It was left, indeed, to the Master to make the sublime 
announcement that God is a spirit and that they who 
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. 
This sentiment, however, was no novelty of the 
Christian era. It was born in no bitter experiences of 
the exile. It is found already in the code of Deuteron- 
omy, written as with a pen of iron (xii. 2-4, 29, 30 ; cf. 
iv. 15-19; vii. 5, 25, 26; XX. 18). It is displayed, as a 
jewel on its foil, against the dark background of Israel's 
earlier Canaantish history. Gideon made an ephod of 
the people's ornaments ; but mark the characterization 
of it ! It became a "snare " and its service was looked 
upon as spiritual adultery (Judges viii. 24-27). A simi- 
lar device of Micah is stigmatized as a thing, a graven 
image (Judges xvii. 4), and the reverence shown it 
stamped as an abnormity of a lawless age and a positive 
antagonizing of the worship of the Lord before the ark 
at Shiloh (Judges xviii. 31). 

The candor of the historian supplies us, also, with 
the information that King Solomon erected a high- 
place to Chemosh, the " abomination of the Moabites " 
(i Kings xi. 7). But we do not need to be informed 
that it is the lapsed Solomon. It is he who at an 
earlier period had given expression to the thought: 
'' Will God, indeed, dwell on the earth .? Behold the 
heaven of heavens cannot contain thee, how much less 
this house which I have buildcd " (i Kings viii. 27). 



The Law and the Historical Books. 339 

The better moral sentiment of Israel on this subject 
during the period of the earlier kings, is well voiced in 
that masterpiece of the Chokma literature, the Book 
of Job. *'If," says this writer, "I saw the sunlight 
when it beamed forth and the moon walking in bright- 
ness and my heart was secretly befooled and I kissed 
my hand to them : that, too, would have been a punish- 
able offence ; for I should have played the hypocrite 
before God on high" (Job xxxL 26-28). It is equally 
so, in the evident abhorrence which Jeroboam's legend 
for his golden calves at Bethel awakened, as far as we 
know, in every Jewish writer of his and subsequent 
biblical times : '' Behold thy gods, Israel, which brought 
thee up out of the land of Egypt " (i Kings xii. 28). 
How confidently, moreover, this narrator relied on 
the enlightened moral sense of his countrymen in this 
characterization of the Egyptianized king of Israel, 
and how far he is from showing himself a merely parti- 
san historiographer of the southern kingdom, appears 
in his bold appeal to numerous other facts in the civil 
policy of Jeroboam, not one of which had any pertinence 
except as he himself truly represented the course of 
Israelitish history and spoke from the standpoint of 
the long ago chosen people (i Kings xii. 31-33; xiii.). 

But there is another phenomenon of the Israelitish 
religion clearly witnessed to by the history in common 
with the Law and the Prophets to which attention should 
be called in this connection : it is the universality of 
its outlook from the start. Its genius might be said to 
be particularism. Selection and election mark its 
career from its patriarchal ancestry downward. It is 
never concealed, however, that the particular is for the 
general ; the redeemed nation the unit of a redeemed 
world. 



340 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

It is claimed, now, and must, on their principles, 
necessarily be claimed, by the advocates of a merely 
natural evolution of Israel's history, that this element of 
universalism is a product of the prophetic period. It is 
held that before the time of Micah and Isaiah Israel's 
religious hope and aspiration were shut up within the 
narrow horizon of the nation politically considered. 
Largely indebted to their matchless prophets, 
especially the later ones, for their marvelous perspec- 
tive, it is freely confessed that this people undoubtedly 
was. If these men outgrew the name, they never out- 
grew the prerogative, of seers. They vaulted at a 
bound intervening centuries and seemed to apprehend 
not a little of the breadth of that most universal and 
most characteristic of Christian petitions : " Thy king- 
dom come"! Still Jews, and in their little rocky 
home-land burning with a patriotism which no trials 
could quench, they also spoke jubilantly of a common- 
wealth of nations, a universal empire of righteousness 
and peace, where the ransomed of the Lord should 
return to Zion and sorrow and sighing should flee 
away. 

Our grandest Christian enterprises, in fact, still run 
in prophetic grooves. It is not St. John and St. Paul 
who are the patrons of modern missions, but rather 
the rapt Isaiah. It is his bugle that still, to-day, rallies 
and guides the march of the militant host. And as, 
sometimes, there are stars which refuse to be obscured, 
making themselves manifest even through the splendor 
of a noonday sun, so there are passages in this and 
other prophets so luminous with heavenly hope that, 
not alone in the gloom of Africa or the twilight of the 
older civilizations, but at the very focus of Christian 
civilization and enlightenment, they serve as beacons 
of inspiration and encouragement. 



The Law mid the Historical Books. 341 

It is true also, as has been already said, that both the 
earlier and later Israel — though rather the later than 
the earlier — -has been marked by a peculiar isolation. 
It has been the gulf stream of human society, although 
with little of its tropic warmth. Balaam's prediction 
concerning it has been literally verified to our day. It 
has been a people that has dwelt alone and has not 
been reckoned among the nations (Num. xxiii. 9). 
Still, these facts, so far from furnishing a reason for 
denying the stamp of universalism that has been put 
upon the institutions and history of Israel throughout, 
serve rather to display it, on the one hand, by a marked 
coincidence ; on the other, by as marked a contrast. It 
is not needful to recall our Lord's words to his Jewish 
contemporaries : '' Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to 
see my day ; and he saw it, and was glad " (John viii. 
56). The same truth is more than foreshadowed in 
numerous passages in Genesis (xviii. 18; xxii. 18; 
xxvi. 4). While it was in this father of Israel that the 
high-water mark of national election was reached, it is 
to him also that we may especially look for evidence 
that such election was a means, had an application that 
reached to the utmost limits of the pagan world. If, 
for reasons that are obvious,^ the principle of universal- 
ism, the thought of the Psalmist, " The kingdom is the 
Lord's, and he is the Governor among the nations" 
(xxii. 29), was, at first, to some extent kept in abeyance, 
its existence and wide potentiality are undeniable. 

If, for instance, there could be found no other 
justification for what are termed, in our day, ''home 
missions," a sufficient one might be found in the primi- 
tive customs and codes of Israel. There was never a 
time when others than Israelites were not, by con- 

1 Such as the marked isolation of peoples generally in the earlier periods, and especially 
the antagonistic attitude almost universally taken toward Israel. 



342 TJie PcntatcticJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

version and religious assimilation, becoming embodied 
with the Jewish people. No other nation of antiquity 
had such kindly and humane laws respecting the 
*' strangers " who found refuge among them. They 
begin in Exodus (xx. lo; xxii. 20, the "Book of the 
Covenant "), and they make a feature of the Deuteron- 
omic code scarcely second to any other. Long before 
Micah's startling announcements and Isaiah's visions, 
we find in many a biblical writer a breadth of concep- 
tion concerning Israel's future, and a beginning made 
in what may be called her foreign-missionary work, that 
are certainly not unworthy of the prophetic climax. 

Leaving out of view the far-reaching predictions of 
the dying patriarchs and other similar indications of 
Israel's earlier attitude toward the nations, it is the 
mother of Samuel whose song, echoed in the magnificat 
of Mary the blessed, exalts Jehovah as the judge of the 
ends of the earth, before whom the heavens thunder 
and his enemies lick the dust (i Sam. ii. 10). Solomon, 
in his prayer of dedication, where, if anywhere, it might 
be expected that the sentiment of political and religious 
centralization would find place, bethinks himself also 
of the stranger out of a far country, "when he shall 
come and pray toward this house." He pleads : "Hear 
then in heaven thy dwelling-place, and do according to 
all that the stranger calleth to thee for : tJiat all the 
people of the earth may knozv thy name to fear thee as 
do thy people Israel' \i Kings viii. 42, 43 ; cf. vs. 60). 
And it may be looked upon as an historical reflection 
of this petition that it is recorded that when the Queen 
of Sheba came to "hear the wisdom of Solomon," she 
was also led to magnify the Lord his God, and to 
confess that the Lord had "ever loved Israel " (i Kings 
x. 9). The most moving picture, perhaps, in the great 



TJie Lazv and the Historical Books. 343 

# 

career of the prophet Elijah is that of his friendly 
ministrations to the impoverished Canaanitish widow 
of Zarephath. Among the most significant acts of 
Elisha were the healing of Naaman the Syrian and the 
fore-announcement to Hazael of Damascus, the future 
scourge of Israel, of his elevation to the throne (2 Kings 
viii. 7-15). Prophecy is not less prophetic because it 
shows itself in action as well as in speech. 

What one thing, indeed, could better have proved the 
world-calling of the covenant people than the mission 
of Jonah to the great Assyrian capital on the banks of 
the Tigris ? In this little book the current of history 
and prophecy meet and coalesce. It has been justly 
called^ ''a foreign-missionary book in the midst of the 
Old Testament " ; a divine anticipation of the breaking- 
down of barriers in the announcement of salvation." 
Objecting to some parts of the story as fabulous does 
not explain the reason why such a story is told of the 
son of Amittai, a contemporary of the prophet Elisha. 
The fact of his inevitable and unalterable commission 
is but set in the stronger light by his reluctance to 
execute it. It was the Jew who resisted, the character 
that lacks no prominence in the sacred annals, even in 
those of the New Testament. It is the Israelite, the 
true son of Abraham, the man who has been lifted into 
the higher atmosphere of the national institutions, who 
finally yields and preaches the preaching that he is 
bidden. 

These, now, are some of the most characteristic 
elements of the religion of Israel. They are acknowl 
edged by all to be such in the most developed stages 
of that religion. But we find them potential and 
necessary elements in the patriarchal and royal periods 

1 Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies, p. 58 f. 



344 ^^^^ Pentatetich : Its Origin and Structure. 

as well as in the prophetic. If there be any later era 
of the nation's life when they first began to be intro- 
duced, we fail to discover it. If there were a real 
chrysalis period and condition of these principles, the 
present text of the Bible gives us no intimation of it ; 
much less of the point of transition where they took 
the place of others which were their exact opposites 
and had been disputing the way with them. Signs of 
conflict, it is true, are sufficiently abundant ; but it is 
with Canaanitish and other heathen customs, which, 
like the Canaanites themselves, are recognized as under 
the ban and exist alone by sufferance. 

If, accordingly, the theory of our critics be correct, 
there is a singular confusion of ideas in the books of 
Judges, Samuel, and the Kings. Not only have they 
been seriously tampered with, they have been wholly 
and purposely reconstructed in the interest of a late 
and largely fanciful conception of Israelitish history. 
And this, these same critics, as we have seen, do not 
hesitate to affirm and to make the starting-point of all 
their reasoning. But let us be consistent. We may 
accept or we may reject the biblical books as our 
authorities. We cannot, with fairness, accept what we 
please and reject what we please, to suit the require- 
ments of an hypothesis confessed to be alien to both 
the letter and spirit of the Bible as it now exists. 
It will probably be found, in the end, that what 
the majority of men and women who have the Bible 
wish to know is what the biblical writers themselves 
say. What the critic has to say, if it contradict the 
Bible, will doubtless be taken for what it is worth. 
And what it is worth will depend largely upon the 
evidence he has to offer that he has special facilities 
for discovering the errors of the Bible and that he 



The Law and the Historical Books. 345 

himself may safely be followed where it would lead 
us astray.i 

We remark in the third place, and finally, that the 
historical books of the Old Testament contain such 
references, direct and indirect, to the Pentateuch 
history and codes in their united form as the Torah 
mediated by Moses, that we are fully justified, in the 
circumstances, in inferring, what these histories would 
plainly have us infer, that they all and severally 
belong to the Mosaic period. 

The references are of such a kind, that is, as to 
substantiate the point of view, the spirit, the ruling 
principles of the narrative as we have found them in 
the preceding investigation. It is not to be overlooked, 
however, that it is with histories that we now have to do. 
It would be unfair to demand of them that they give 
us a detailed account of the regular religious and eccle- 
siastical usages of the periods they cover, unless they 
profess to do this, which is clearly not the case. They 
necessarily take not a little for granted. They were 
written for people who did not need to be assured of 
the certainty of many things now considered uncertain. 
They therefore note, as we would expect them to do, 
offences against the laws rather than occasions of their 
regular observance ; the extraordinary rather than the 
ordinary. The principles that governed the writers, 
their ethical point of view required them to do as 

1 The Co7igregatto7ialist of October 9, 1884, in a notice of Stanley's work on The 
Future Religion., has the following remarks on his methods, which are also pertinent here: 
" On this basis Mr. Stanley is free to rule in and to rule out, to accept a statement as far as 
it suits his preconceived theories, and anywhere and anywhea to reject a part, or the whole, 
as he may find needful for the uses of whatever hypothesis is for the time being in hand. 
This is convenient for Mr. Stanley. But the inconvenience of it to the reader partly con- 
sists in the fact that it requires him to accept that gentleman as the source of all revelation 
fit to claim human confidence, while failing to suggest so much as a scintilla of proof that 
he knows any more than everybody else knows about it." Cf also a notice of Von 
Ranke's U?tiversal History in the Sicnday-School Times for September 13, 1884, p. 586. 



34^ The PentatetLch : Its Origin and Structure. 

much as this. Their duties as historians did not 
require them to do more. 

Taking, now, a hasty survey of the three connected 
histories of Judges, Samuel, and the Kings,^ let us see 
if there has not been left upon them such a peculiar 
impression of the so-called " Mosaic " institutions as 
to force us, all things being considered, to the conclu- 
sion that their acknowledged point of view is genuine 
and not assumed ; that is, that the Torah in its full 
extent furnished the literary and moral basis on which 
they were one and all constructed. We will begin 
with references that are more or less indefinite ; then, 
take up such as seem unmistakable ; and finally, note 
what is exceptional and might be supposed, if it stood 
alone, to justify a contrary result. 

We find, at the outset, that the Book of Judges is 
joined to that of Joshua by the conjunction vaVy and 
that its opening chajoters have the marked coloring of 
the Book of the Covenant and the code of Deuteronomy 
(ii. 1-3; cf. Ex. XX. 2; xxiii. 33; Deut. xii. 3 f.). We 
find the Deuteronomic office of the judge, during this 
whole period, taking precedence of every other (Deut. 
xvi. 18 f. ; xvii. 8 f.). We find the nation as such, 
notwithstanding it is so conscious, in this era of land 
settlements, of its tribal character, sometimes, at least, 
acting in unison (viii. 22, 23 ; xx. i ; xxi. 16, 22 f.). We 
find in the acknowledged kingship of Jehovah a tacit 
recognition of the most fundamental principle of the 
theocracy (viii. 22 f.). We see the Levites scattered 
among the other tribes, enjoying peculiar prerogatives 
accorded peculiar honors (xvii. 5-13 ; xix. i, 2). The 
rite of circumcision is recognized as a national dis- 

1 The Book of Joshua, which would be a decisive factor in tlie discussion if it were 
admitted to it as genuine history, is cxchided by our critics as being a part of the Hexa- 
teuch whose age and composition arc in debate. 



TJie Law and the Historical Books. 347 

tinction (xiv. 3 ; cf. xv. 18). The tribe of Judah holds 
the preeminence which is claimed for it in the history 
of the exodus (i. 2; xx. 18; cf. Num. ii. 3 ; x. 14; Gen. 
xlix. 8 ff.). 

When, further, we come to the Books of Samuel, we 
find them introduced by an account of a Levitical 
and a priestly family and their intimate relationship. 
Samuel appears as judge to supplant the inefficient 
Eli ; but also to introduce an office of higher signifi- 
cance and bring back his lapsed people to what he 
claims to be the old faith and the old service (i Sam. 
vii. 3 f.). 

The Ark of the Covenant comes into ever greater 
prominence as the central object of the national sanctu- 
ary and the focus of religious life. In the very opening 
chapters the Elohistic history of the Book of Exodus 
is made a subject of frequent reference (i Sam. iv. 8; 
viii. 8 ; xii. 8 ; cf. Ex. iii.-xv.). The historian hastens 
forward to his principal topic, which is the career of 
David ; but he seems never to forget that the peculiar 
history of Israel hitherto has furnished the pledge, and 
is the ground of hope, for its future (cf. i Sam. iv. 
14-22 ; viii. 6, 7). 

In the Books of Kings, the law of the land, precedent, 
what is sanctioned in distinction from what is often in 
vogue is, as we have seen, everywhere represented as 
something that has come down from the fathers. In a 
surprising number of instances it is definitely connected 
by name with Moses and with the institutions of Moses 
(i Kings ii. 3; viii. 9, 53, 56; 2 Kings xiv. 6; xxviii. 
4, 6; xxi. 8 ; xxiii. 25). At the same time, what appear 
to be verbal reminiscences of the Pentateuch history 
and its two leading codes are scattered about in both 
Samuel and the Kings like scraps of ore from a central 



348 TJie PcutaiencJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

ledge (i Sam. ii. 13 ; cf. Deut. xviii. 3; i Sam. xv. 29; 
cf. Num. xxiii. 19; i Sam. viii. 5; cf. Deut. xvii. 14; 
2 Sam. vii. 22-24; cf. Deut. iv. 7 ; x. 21 ; xiii. 6)} 

These might be called general allusions to the 
Pentateuch. There is a multitude of others which 
fail as little in pertinence as in explicitness. The law 
of the Nazarite, for example, is found only in the 
"Priests' Code" (Num. vi. 1-21); while the historical 
books show us that it had its greatest significance as 
a practice near the close of the period of the judges. 
In fact, the only Nazarites for life mentioned in the 
Bible are Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist. In 
harmony with all the codes, the eating of the blood, 
with the flesh, of animals is treated by Saul as a 
gross offence (i Sam. xiv. 32, 33 ; cf. Gen. ix. 4; Lev. 
iii. 17; Deut. xii. 16, 23; xiv. 21, 23). So, too, the 
command to Saul to destroy the Amalekites rests 
equally and solidly on the two abutments of an histori- 
cal fact and legal enactment of the Elohistic Torah, 
on the one hand, and the code of Deuteronomy, on 
the other (i Sam. xv. i ff. ; Ex. xvii. 8 ff. ; Deut. xxv. 17- 
19). We likewise find in this same period of Israel's 
first king what appears to be the regular observance 
of the festival of the new moon, a matter legitimated 
solely by the code of the middle books of the 
Pentateuch (i Sam. xx. 5 ; cf. Num. x. 10; xxviii. 11). 
Ceremonial impurity also is looked upon even by Saul 
as a sufficient occasion for abstinence from religious 
festivities (i Sam. xx. 26; xxi. 5, 6). The law against 
the taking of bribes and that making the destruction of 
every form of witchcraft along with those practising it 

1 Further, with i Kings ii. 3 cf., in the original, Deut. xxix. 8; with i Kings ii. 9 cf. 

Deut. xxi. 17; with i Kings xxii. 17 cf. Num. xxvii. 17; with i Kings xxii. 27 cf. 

Deut. xvi. 3; with 2 Kings v. 27 cf. Ex. iv. 6; Num. xii. 10; with 2 Kings xiv. 27 
cf. Deut. ix. 14; xxix. 20, 



The Law and the Historical Books. 349 

the imperative duty of the state, we discover already in 
force under circumstances that greatly enhance the 
stress that is laid upon them in the codes (i Sam. viii. 
3 ; xii. 3 ; cf. Deut. xvi. 9 ; i Sam. xxviii. 9 f. ; cf. Deut. 
xviii. 10, 11). 

In the time of Solomon the feast of tabernacles, as 
well as the other two pilgrimage feasts, are recognized, 
as it would appear, as established usages (i Kings viii. 
2 ; ix. 25). 1 In his prayer of dedication specific notice 
is taken of the blessings and curses of the Pentateuch, 
both in their earlier and their later form (i Kings viii. ; 
cf. Lev. xxvi. ; Deut. xxviii.). In harmony with Joshua 
xxi. 8, Anathoth is incidentally indicated as one of the 
Levitical cities (i Kings ii. 26 ; cf. Josh. xiv. 4; Num. 
XXXV. 8). Of Jeroboam it is said that he purposely 
transgressed the law respecting the feast of the 
seventh month, that is, the feast of tabernacles 
(i Kings xii. 32 f. ; cf. Lev. xxiii. 34 £f.). And of Jehu 
that he took " no heed to walk in the law of the Lord 
God of Israel" (2'Kings x. 31). In 2 Kings vii. 3, 
during the famine in Samaria, we find a company of 
lepers treated just as the Levitical statutes enjoin, 
in their exclusion from the camp (Lev. xiii. 46; 
Num. V. 3). 

Other passages represent as something known to 
every one the hour of morning and evening sacrifice 
(i Kings xviii. 29 ; 2 Kings iii. 20) ; the law of the 
trespass-offering and sin-offering (2 Kings xii. \j)? 

^ " Denn wenn i Kbn. viii. 2 gesagt wird, dass sich das Volk, um Zeuge der UberfUh- 
rung der Bundeslade in den voUendeten Tempel zu sein im 7. Monat bechagh versam- 
melte, so bezieht sich dieses Chdgk nicht auf die Tempelweihe (wie es verstehen liese 
wenn lachdgh chdgh gesagt ware) , sondern auf das in den Tischri fallende Laubenfest, 
mit welchem Salomo die Tempelweihe verband." — Delitzsch, in Zeitschrift f'tlr 
kirchliche Wissenschaft, etc., 1880, p. 173. 

2 " Schzildopfer-u7id Suttdopfergeld, d. i., das, was man bei diesen O^km /reiiuillig 
dem administrirenden Priester fur seine BemiiJunig darreichte, s. 4 Mos. 5, 10." — 
Thenius, Com., in loc. 



350 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

and that of the Sabbath (2 Kings iv. 23. ; cf. xi. 5 f.). 
In 2 Kings xiv. 6, Amaziah is declared to have acted 
in a certain matter according to that which was 
"written in the book of the law of Moses," the code of 
Deuteronomy being obviously referred to (Deut. xxiv. 
16). A few chapters later we are informed concerning 
the mixed peoples whom the king of Assyria trans- 
planted to the northern kingdom, that they did not 
" after the law and commandment which the Lord 
commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named 
Israel ; with whom the Lord had made a covenant and 
charged them saying. Ye shall not fear other gods . . . 
but the Lord who brought you up out of the land 
of Egypt. . . . And the statutes, and the ordinances, 
and the law, and the commandment which he wrote 
for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore ; and ye 
shall not fear other gods (2 Kings xvii, 34-37 ; cf. Deut. 
xiii. 4 with vs. 36). Moreover, there is so much 
said of writing, as of letters and of books, in all this 
period from Samuel down (i Sam. x. 25 ; 2 Sam. i. 18; 
xi. 14, 15 ; I Kings xi. 41 ; xxi. 8 ; 2 Kings v. 5 ; x. i ; 
XX. 12 ; cf. Ex. xvii. 14; xxxii. 32, 33 ; Num. v. 23 ; xxi 
14; Deut. xxvii. 8; xxxi. 9; Josh. x. 13 ; xviii. 9), that 
it would have been no surprise to us to read, as we do 
(2 Kings xxii. 3), that in the eighteenth year of King 
Josiah, on the occasion of certain repairs in the temple, 
the high-priest, Hilkiah, found there *' the book of the 
law," even if the Pentateuch had not already instructed 
us (Num. xvii. 22; Deut. xvii. 18; xxxi. 9, 25, 26; cf. 
Josh. xxiv. 26) that it had been originally deposited 
beside the ark. 

But still further, and still more directly to the point, 
to go back once more to the beginning, there is the 
central and indisputable fact that, during the whole 



The Lazv and the Historical Books. 351 

period of the judges, including the Hfe of Samuel, the 
Mosaic institutions of a national sanctuary and a 
national Aaronic priesthood existed and were governed, 
as far as the sacred history informs us, in essential 
accordance with the Pentateuch legislation. Nowhere, 
for example, in the Book of Judges is there more than 
one "house of the Lord" spoken of (xix. 18). Except- 
ing for a brief period and under extraordinary circum- 
stances this was at Shiloh (Judges xviii. 31 ; i Sam. ii. 
29).^ Here Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, officiated as 
priest (Judges xx. 28), and here the annual festivals 
were duly and consecutively celebrated (Judges xxi. 19; 
I Sam, i. 3, 7 ; ii. 14, 19). Eli and his sons are recog- 
nized as lineal descendants of Aaron and as called to 
the priesthood solely on that account (i Sam. ii. 27, 28; 
xxii. 20 ; I Kings ii. 27). They dwell at Shiloh, where 
the "tabernacle of the congregation" (i Sam. ii. 22) 
containing the ark and other furniture of the Mosaic 
structure are found (i Sam. iv. 4 ; cf. Ex. xxv. 22 ; 
Num. vii. 89). It has the altar (i Sam. ii. 29), the 
"lamp of God" (i Sam. iii. 3), and the table of shew- 
bread (i Sam. xxi. 5). Here the fat pieces of animals 
are incensed or offered up by fire (i Sam. ii. 15, 28). 
Here, before the door of the " tabernacle of the con- 
gregation," as of old, the people assemble (ii. 22) to 
tithe the tenth (i Sam. viii. 15, 17), vow their vows 
(i Sam. i, 11), and bring to the Lord meal-offerings, 
burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, and trespass-offerings, 
all of which forms of sacrifice are recognized in the 
first ten chapters of i Samuel. 

It is claimed that at this time the distinction between 
priest and layman did not exist. But we find, on the 

1 That its being elsewhere was exceptional is evident from what is said in Judges xx. 27. 
This verse, moreover, shows that " Bethel " and not " house of God " is the proper ren- 
dering in the preceding verse. 



352 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and StnLcture. 

contrary, the people holding the officiating priests 
amenable, in their service, to established regulations 
and warmly resenting innovations regarded as in 
defiance of law (i Sam. ii. 13-17; cf. Deut. xviii. 3; 
Lev. vii. 31, 32). We find the priests using some 
peculiar implements of the ancient tabernacle which 
are scarcely mentioned elsewhere outside the code of 
the middle books of the Pentateuch (i Sam. ii. 13, 14; 
cf. Ex. xxvii. 3 ; xxxviii. 3 ; Num. iv. 14). We see 
them habited in the priestly vestments appointed by the 
great lawgiver, the high-priest, it is to be especially 
noted, in the ephod with its dazzling breastplate con- 
taining the Urim and Thummim (i Sam. ii. 28 ; xiv. 3 ; 
xxi. 10; xxviii. 6, 15 ; cf. Ex. xxviii. 30; Lev. viii. 8; 
Num. xxvii. 18-21 ; Deut. xxxiii. 8). And, finally, we 
are able, with reasonable certainty, to identify nearly 
every incumbent of the high-priest's office from the 
time of Aaron to that of David as well as from David 
to the Babylonian exile.^ 

Such a mass of evidence, now, as is here furnished 
in favor of the existence of what was most charac- 
teristic in the laws of the Pentateuch cannot be 
set aside by simple assertions to the contrary. It 
is not enough that men tell us that, in their opinion, 
the histories have been worked over in a later 
period in the spirit of later institutions. We want 
proof, at least as clear as that which we give, that 
the laws of the Pentateuch ever existed in any other 
form than in that in which we now find them. We 
want positive historical testimony that this process of 
working over, in the manner thus indicated, was ever 

1 Cf. s.v. " Hoheprlester" in Riehm's Handworterbuch, etc.; idem. s.v. " Zadok." 
Passages of the historical books on which the principal dependence is placed are Judges 
XX. 28; Num. XXV. 13; I Chron. v. 27-41; vi. 35-38; i Sam. xiv. 3; xxi. i; xxii. 9; 
I Kings ii. 26. See also art. " High-priest'' in Smith's Bible Dictionary. 



TJie Law and the Historical Books. 353 

so much as attempted by a biblical writer of the later 
day. A single accredited sample of such work actually 
done, with names and dates, is certainly not too much 
to ask of an hypothesis which so upsets all our 
previous conceptions of the character and method of 
biblical writers. " No man rendeth a piece from a new 
garment and putteth it upon an old garment ; else he 
will rend the new, and also the piece from the new will 
not agree with the old. And no man putteth new wine 
into old wineskins, else the new wine will burst the 
skins, and itself will be spilled, and the skins will 
perish" (Luke v. 36, 37). 

Moreover, with such a mass of evidence in support of 
the old theory, which is also the acknowledged teaching 
of the Scriptures themselves, that the Torah in all its 
essential features is Mosaic, there is no difficulty in 
accounting for what is exceptional and anomalous in the 
records. Having the law, one can measure the depart- 
ures from it, and having the history, one can readily 
account for such departures. The difficulties, on the 
other hand, begin and multiply to an extent that is quite 
disheartening the moment we begin to investigate on 
the principle that the records are anything else rather 
than a bona fide account of things as they really were ; 
that the men who had to do with them were of a 
character diametrically opposed to that of the Psalmist 
who wrote : " Who, O Jehovah ! shall be a guest in thy 
Tabernacle } Who shall dwell in thy holy mountain t 
He that walketh blamelessly, and doeth justice, and 
speaketh truthfully in his heart" (Ps. xv. i, 2.) 

During the period of the judges we find positively 
nothing, all the circumstances being considered, that 
has even the appearance of illegality which is not con- 
demned as illegal. The sacrifice at Bochim was in the 



354 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

presence of '' the angel of the Lord," if not of the ark 
itself. The altar that Gideon built at Ophrah was 
solely as a monument (of. Ex. xvii. 15 ; Josh. xxii. 16, 
26 f.), as the context, where one of another sort is 
referred to, shows (Judges vi. 24, 25 f.). There is no 
evidence that it was ever used for sacrifice. Manoah's 
offering in the open field was in recognition of a 
theophany, and hence in perfect harmony with Ex. 
XX. 24, and with the other codes. 

Micah was a confessed idolater as well as thief 
(Judges xvii. 5, 12). His actions prove conclusively 
that a semi-priestly character was then accorded to 
Levites. That they were regarded as actual priests it 
does not prove. Their position throughout the book is 
wholly consonant with that assigned them in the Penta- 
teuch (xix. i.). Gideon's *' ephod " that he made of the 
earrings taken in battle is stigmatized as idolatrous by 
epithets worthy of an Isaiah (Judges viii. 24-27.) The 
expression ''before the Lord" cannot justly be under- 
stood to refer to an established sanctuary (Judges xi. 
II ; XX. I ; cf. I Sam. xxiii. 18 ; i Kings iii. 6; 2 Chron. 
xiv. 12; Neh. i. 4, and many other passages). The ark 
itself, indeed, may to some extent have been carried 
about from place to place during this period, as we 
know it was in the following one (with Judges xx. 
27, 31 cf. I Sam. iv. 3; Num. x. 35). Worship, 
combined with animal sacrifices in its presence, was, 
of course, the very thing authorized by every phase of 
the Pentateuch laws (Judges xx. 26, 27 ; xxi. 4). 

So when we turn to the Books of Samuel and the 
Kings, it is the presence or the absence of the ark 
which justifies everything that is normal and sufficiently 
explains everything that is abnormal in the history. 
Whether at Shiloh, or in the hands of the Philistines, at 



The Law and the Historical Books. 355 

Kirjath-jearim or on Mount Zion, it is everywhere and 
always, "the Ark of the Covenant," the silent witness 
from the period of the exodus. There is but one such 
ark in Israelitish history, and it renders that history in 
its main features, especially in its characteristic religious 
features, indivisible and unimpeachable. The secret of 
the books is the secret of the ark which stored them 
and between whose cherubim dwelt Jehovah of hosts. 
At Shiloh we find the ark in its accustomed place 
within the tabernacle. It is the old tabernacle as well 
as the old Mosaic ''Ark of the Covenant." It bears its 
Pentateuch title, ''the tent of meeting" (i Sam. ii. 22; 
cf. Ex. xxix. 4). It is not, as has been affirmed,^ a 
house with posts and doors. It was to the prophet 
Nathan, considerably later, that the message came from 
the Lord, saying, " I have not dwelt in a house since 
the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of 
Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and 
in a tabernacle (2 Sam. vii. 6 ; cf, i Sam. i. 9; iii. 15). 
Our critics have simply confounded the inclosure of the 
tabernacle with the tabernacle itself. And they make 
mistakes even less excusable when they affirm that 
because it is said of Samuel that he slept within this 
inclosure, he must have slept in the presence of the 
ark ; and that when it is narrated of Hannah that she 
made her little son a coat of linen, it betrays an 
infringement of the " Priests' Code," which allows such 
a garment only to the highest ecclesiastic.^ An "ephod " 
it is called, to be sure, as is the garment which David 
wore when he danced before the ark (i Sam. ii. 18; 2 
Sam. vi. 14), but a " linen ephod " in both cases, which 
was a very different thing from that which formed a 
principal article of the high-priest's official costume. 

1 Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 258 f. - Smith, ibid. p. 259. 



356 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

And when we carefully scan in the succeeding history 
the list of alleged transgressions of Pentateuch laws, 
especially that of sacrificial worship at a central altar, 
it will be found that not a single one of these cases 
occurs before a certain fixed date, and that there is not 
one that is not clearly disapproved after another fixed 
date. The close of the first period is definitely marked 
by the capture of the ark at Shiloh ; the beginning of 
the second, by the erection and dedication of the temple 
at Jerusalem. Between these two points, a space of 
not far from a hundred years, are found clustered 
together the most of those anomalies on which such 
extraordinary conclusions have been based.^ Anomalies 
occurred then simply because the times were anomalous. 
The capture of the ark by the Philistines, and its 
subsequent obscuration and neglect throughout the 
remainder of Samuel's regency and the whole of Saul's 
reign, equally signalized a period of dreadful spiritual 
relapse on the part of Israel, the abandonment of 
covenant obligations, and a temporary suspension of 
the laws of the covenant. " Ichabod " ! was the dying 
exclamation of Eli's daughter-in-law. "The glory is 
departed from Israel ; for the ark of God is taken " 
(i Sam. iv. 19-22). " God was wroth with his inher- 
itance," says the Psalmist, referring to the same event, 
'' so that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent 
which he placed among men" (Ps. Ixxviii. 58-62). 

1 " There is not from Joshua to Samuel a recorded instance of sacrifice elsewhere than 
at Shiloh which is not explicitly declared to have been offered either in presence of the 
ark or in connection with an immediate manifestation of the presence of Jehovah or of 
the Angel of Jehovah. And no sacrifice was offered by any one not a descendant of 
Aaron, except when Jehovah or the Angel of Jehovah had appeared to him. The only 
exceptions are expressly characterized by the sacred historian as open and flagrant 
transgressions of known law: as the idolatry at Ophrah (Judges vili. 27) and that of the 
renegade Micah (xvii. 5), not to speak of apostasy to Baal and Ashtoreth which is repro- 
bated and chastised from the beginning to the end. The Book of Judges does not contain 
a trace of sanctioned, or even tolerated, worship upon high-places." — Professor Green, 
Moses aftd the Prophets, p. 137 f. 



TJie Lazv and the Historical Books. 357 

Statute law, for the time being, whose support and 
sanction was the God who dwelt between the cherubim, 
gave way to common law, and men returned to customs 
that ruled before the days of Moses. This, indeed, 
along with outward afflictions, was the providential 
means intended to bring back the people to a sense of 
their obligation and their need. And it succeeded. 
They "lamented after the Lord" (i Sam. vii. 2) and by 
this very discipline were prepared, as they could not 
otherwise have been, to understand the spiritual 
significance of the temple at Jerusalem. 

It is thus, then, that we explain the fact of Samuel's 
sacrificing at Mizpeh, Ramah, Bethlehem, Gilgal, and 
possibly other places (i Sam. vii. 5-9, 16 ; x. 8 ; xi. 14, 
15 ; xvi. 2 ff.), and that he did it while the tabernacle 
was at Nob and even after the ark had been brought 
back to Kirjath-jearim. He acted on the principle that 
a central sanctuary no longer existed. Its law he 
regarded as for the time being in abeyance. In fact, 
the original conditions of its observance were no longer 
present (Deut. xii. 10). It is everywhere assumed, 
moreover, that in doing so he was divinely directed ; 
that just as really as Moses in mediating the laws, 
Samuel was an extraordinary agent of Jehovah in 
temporarily suspending them. To obey was better 
than sacrifice (i Sam. xv. 22, 23). 

And as it concerns the sacrificial worship offered at 
various places by others, as by David's family at Bethle- 
hem (i Sam. XX. 6), Absalom at Hebron {} 2 Sam. xv. 
7-9), David himself at the threshing-floor of Araunah 
(2 Sam. xxiv. 18), Adonijah at En-rogel (i Kings i. 7-9), 
Solomon at Gibeon (i Kings iii. 4), Elijah on Carmel 
(i Kings xviii.), when they are not represented, as in 
the last case, to be in obedience to a divine command 



358 The Pciitateitch: Its Origin and StrnctiLrc. 

(vs. 36), they may be looked upon, one and all, as simply 
illustrating the principle 7tecessitas no7i habet legem. 
There existed no one place in this period of the retire- 
ment of the ark from its accustomed and historic 
position which was really more legitimate and author- 
ized than another. 

Just this absence of a legal sanction for worship 
previous to the time of Solomon is indicated by the 
writer of the Books of Kings when he says : *'Only the 
people sacrificed in high-places, because there was no 
house built unto the name of the Lord until those 
days " (i Kings iii. 2). Its potency as a rallying-point 
had purposely and as a punishment of disobedience been 
withdrawn from the ark ; it was only restored and this 
sacred object again became the appointed meeting- 
place of God and his people after its establishment 
within the consecrated temple (i Kings xiv. 21).^ 
Sporadic worship at these various places did not con- 
stitute them sanctuaries in the same sense that the 
ark had been a sanctuary. Their sole justification was 
necessity. And the moment the necessity ceased, they 
cease to be accorded even a qnasi-^-MioXiow? 

^ That men who are not priests should offer sacrifices may be looked upon, indeed, as 
irregular (Lev. i. 9 f. ; v. 8 f.) ; but even the most stringent regulations of the " Priests' 
Code " do not absolutely forbid it. Others than priests, therefore, on special and extra- 
ordinary occasions, might officiate in this capacity, without offending against the Mosaic 
regulations. Still it is by no means certain that, in several instances which we find in 
the history where persons are spoken of as offering sacrifices, the meaning is not that they 
had sacrifices offered. Qui facit per alhtniy facit per se. The case of Saul (i Sam. 
xiv. 33-35) is not one of proper sacrifice. 

2 It was probably with reference to the temple which he proposed to build (2 Sam. vii.) 
that David, when he brought up the ark from Kirjath-jearim, did not also bring up the 
tabernacle from Gibeon (2 Sam. vi. 17). The tent which he pitched in the city of David 
was meant to foreshadow the future home of the ark and centre the nation's attention upon 
it. This purpose of David was providentially greatly forwarded, when the treachery of 
Abiathar furnished Solomon with an occasion for removing him from his post as high- 
priest on Zion and putting in his place the loyal Zadok, who hitherto had acted in this 
capacity in connection with the tabernacle in Cxibeon (i Kings ii. 26 f . ; cf. i Chron. xvi. 
39; xxiv. 3; 2 Sam. viii. 17; xv. 24-29, 35; xx. 25; and s.7>. " Zadok," in Riehm's Hatid- 
ivorterbuch, etc.). With the anomaly of a dual high-priesthood it was doubtless meant l.) 
put an end also to the equal anomaly of unlegalized., as well as illegal, worship in Isr.icl. 



TJlc Lazv and the Historical Books. 359 

There is no sign in the biblical books that subsequent 
to the dedication of the temple worship in other places 
was approved. Here the writer of Kings is of one 
mind with the writer of Chronicles ; and, it may be 
added, with the Psalter and contemporaneous prophets. 
He is obviously out of conceit with Asa, Jehosaphat, 
and the other relatively good kings that in their 
reforms they stop short of removing the high-places 
(i Kings XV. 14; xxii. 43). This is proved not alone by 
referring to the Books of Chronicles (2 Chron. xiv. 3-5 ; 
xvii. 6), where the whole matter is set in the clearest 
light ; but by the way in which the facts are stated in 
Kings. After an enumeration of what these men did 
in the direction of moral renovation that was right, he 
uniformly adds : " Nevertheless, the high-places were 
not taken away." 

Ahaz, in fact, is directly blamed for sacrificing in 
the high-places (2 Kings xvi. 4). It is no evidence 
that the kings, especially the good ones, inwardly 
approved of the Bamoth because they failed to 
extirpate them. It is no sufficient evidence that there 
was no law and no dominant public sentiment already 
formed against these places, because at some of the 
Bamoth Jehovah himself was worshiped and the 
ministry was by Levitical priests (2 Kings xviii. 22 ; 
xxiii. 8, 9). The circumstances and particularly the 
force of inveterate custom are to be considered. It was 
the beginning of a period and it was also the end of 
one. The transition could not well have been made 
without more or less of such irregularities as we find 
recorded in the history. And as it concerns the 
northern kingdom, there is nothing in its ecclesiastical 
non-conformity that cannot be readily accounted for by 
its political non-conformity. The watchword, '' What 



360 TJie Pentateitch : Its Origin ami Structure. 

portion have we in David ? . . . To your tents, O 
Israel," which the ten tribes took up in the days of 
Rehoboam, furnishes a key to all their un-Mosaic and 
unhistorical divergences and excesses. 

In fact, there is nothing so very hard to understand 
in this people's attitude toward the law in any period, 
if the biblical history, brief as it is, be heartily accepted. 
It was a people of whom it is confessed by its own 
writers that it fell into gross idolatry in the very pres- 
ence of Mount Sinai and omitted for forty years the first 
necessary step toward the recognition of the covenant 
by which it had solemnly bound itself, that is, the 
observance of the rite of circumcision (Josh. v. 2 ff.). 
Its great lawgiver predicted apostasy with his latest 
breath (Deut. xxviii. f.). Its greatest military leader 
died with admonitions on his lips (Josh. xxiv. 14 ff.). 

How completely this untutored child which came up 
out of Egypt was dependent on its external circum- 
stances, particularly its immediate leaders, for moral 
stimulus, could not be more suggestively set forth than 
in those words which close the Book of Joshua : '* And 
Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua and all 
the days of the elders that overlived Joshua and who 
had known all the works of the Lord that he had done 
for Israel." There were some hundreds of probationary 
years in which there was no Joshua and no such elders 
with vivid memories of God's deeds ; when there were 
only Samsons and Jephthahs and Gideons ; men of faith 
and heroism, it is true, but certainly lacking in deep 
religious feeling and quickened consciences for the law 
of Jehovah. 

Israel's need of worthy leaders seemed never to be 
greater than when it was without them. It was in 
closest contact with an alien civilization considerably 



The Law and the Historical Books. 361 

superior to its own. It was in a hand-to-hand grapple 
with reUgious customs which were fascinating and 
seductive to the last degree. That it made a sad 
failure is not strange. That it did not make a total 
failure is due solely to direct providential interposition. 
Moses and Joshua could not come back again ; but a 
Samuel was raised up, and henceforth the forces that 
contended against the little Israel of Siniatic memories 
had the mighty line of prophets to reckon with. '' And 
when [after the enthronement of David over all Israel] 
more peaceable and settled times came, the tradition 
was broken. Customs, heathen and idolatrous, or at 
least contrary to the law, had become inveterate. It 
was found impossible to enforce laws which had been 
so long ignored. The revival of laws which are old and 
may be deemed obsolete is always a difficult task. To 
abolish old customs is beyond the power of absolute 
kings. We may wonder that David did not enforce the 
exact observance of the law of Moses, but the history 
indicates that his power over his subjects was by no 
means absolute. When the one shrine was established 
in Jerusalem, obedience to the Mosaic law and the 
supremacy of the tribe of Judah would be closely con- 
nected in the people's mind. Moreover, David was not 
allowed to build the temple, ajDart from which the cere- 
monial code could not be carried out. If David's failure 
to enforce the law can be accounted for, the failure of 
his successors need cause us little trouble. His prac- 
tice was an ideal to which they rarely attained. The 
written law would have no force against immemorial 
custom. Nothing less than a revolution, nothing less 
than the destruction of the national life for a while, 
could give back to the law its rightful authority." ^ 

1 See Watson, The Law and the Prophets, p. 120. 



X. 

THE LAW AND THE PSALMS. 



In discussing the question, what impression, if any, 
has been left by the Law upon the Book of Psalms, it 
is important to agree, at the outset, upon some general 
principles which shall govern us, and to fix, if possible, 
a common point of view. The Psalms form a col- 
lection. At what time, approximately, was this 
collection closed ? They are products of various 
periods and of a considerable number of different 
authors. Can the age and authorship of a large pro- 
portion of them be fixed with sufficient certainty to 
make a discussion of this sort practicable and satis- 
factory ? More definitely, is the Book of Psalms pre- 
exilian in its essential features, or is it post-exilian ? It 
should not be difficult to secure among biblical scholars 
a fair measure of unanimity in these preliminary 
matters. 

First, as it respects the collection, we have direct 
evidence of its virtual completion previous to the close 
of the Persian period, that is, before B.C. 333. We learn, 
for example, from i Chron. xvi. 36, that the Psalter at 
that time was divided into books, as at present, and 
that the doxologies with which these books conclude 
had been already added to them. To affirm that no 
composition could have found its way into the collection 
after this period would perhaps be unjustifiable. It may 
be said that it cannot be proved that there were any. 



TJic Laiv and the Psalms. 363 

And, if there were such, they were not only exceed- 
ingly few, but must have been inserted, by exception, 
in a collection looked upon as formally complete. 

The position of the Psalter in the ancient lists of 
Old Testament canonical books, at the head of the 
third collection, and the fact that it gave its name to 
this series is highly significant. The fact that the 
Septuagint version (b.c. 284-145)^ has precisely the 
same list of psalms, in the same order, is equally sig- 
nificant. The fact that the Seventy ascribed some of 
the psalms which they found without note of author- 
ship to David, others to certain of the canonical 
prophets, but none to a later date, while leaving quite 
a number to circulate in the anonymous form in which 
they had received them, shows what opinion they held 
respecting the antiquity of the Book.^ 

Here, then, we may establish one principal chrono- 
logical boundary. The Book of Psalms was brought to 
an orderly conclusion sometime during the Persian 
supremacy. Its fivefold division, in imitation of the 
Pentateuch, with proem and praiseful afterpart, had 
already, at the date of the Chronicler, been given to it. 
The possibility of fugitive Maccabaean psalms need not 
be disputed, extremely doubtful though they be. A 
Maccabsean Psalter is simply an absurdity to smile at. 
The Hebrew songs with which the Maccabaean heroes 
sometimes introduced their battles (2 Mace. xii. 37 ; xv. 
29) were clearly those of Israel's greatest warrior, 
David. The books which they gathered together 
after the desolating wars of the Seleucidae were the 
books that long before had received the sanction of 

1 See my discussion of its age in The Apocrypha of the O. T. (N. Y., 1880), p. 18. 

2 It is, of course, not impossible that the Seventy had manuscript authority for these 
changes. The conclusion we draw from the fact would not be altered if it were so. 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, and Zechariah have certain psalms imputed to them (137, 138, 
146-148). 



364 The Pentateuch : Its Oi'igin and Strncture. 

the wisest and best of their countrymen (i Mace. i. 56 ; 
2 Mace. ii. 14). 

But if the Book of Psalms was completed not long 
after the return of the exulants from Babylon, it was 
even more certainly begun not later than King David 
and the bulk of it written within two hundred years 
of his reign. Its core, and what still forms the char- 
acteristic and greater portion of it, seems to have 
formed, in fact, the standard Book of Praise in the 
temple of Solomon. ^ 

The early history of Israel may be said, without 
exaggeration, to abound in lyrical compositions.^ From 
Egypt the people brought musical instruments and in 
that land they came in contact with specimens of the 
poetic art that are still the admiration of the learned.^ 
The prophetic schools established by Samuel were 
direct promoters of instrumental music and song 
(i Sam. xix. 19 f.). 

David, accordingly, with his natural taste for lyric 
poetry, was in the best circumstances to attain a 
remarkable success in its cultivation. That he was 
devoted to it from his youth there is abundant evidence 
outside the Psalter (2 Sam. i. 17 f. ; iii. 33 f. ; xxiii. 1-5). 
His harp, a principal occasion for his introduction to 
the court of Saul, was no less the solace of his own 
later years. One of the favorite titles by which he was 
known among his people was '' the sweet psalmist of 
Israel" {2 Sam. xxiii. i). The first result of his anoint- 
ing by the prophet Samuel seems to have been a 
higher uplifting of soul in sacred song. It is indispu- 
table that in David's time music and psalmody reached 

^ It is by no means unlikely that Psalm Ixxii. marks the limit of an original collec- 
tion which was for the most part Davidic. See vs. 20. 
2 Cf., for example, Gen. iv. 23, 24 ; Ex. xv. ; Dent, xxxii.; Judges v.; i Sam. ii, lo ff. 
^ See " Hymn to Amen-Ra " in Records 0/ the Past, ii. p. 127 ff. 



TJie Law and the Psalms. 365 

their highest bloom in Israel. An orchestra of four 
thousand instruments accompanied and led the songs 
of the sanctuary (i Chron. xxiii. 5). The names of his 
choir-leaders, an Asaph and a Heman, were thought 
worthy of an honor scarcely second to that of a Joab or 
an Abner (i Chron. xxv.). Even two centuries later, 
in the rival kingdom of the north, it was the musical 
skill of David that was cited as the standard and 
chief example of high attainment (Am. vi. 5).^ 

It is no surprise, therefore, that we find nearly one 
half of the entire number of psalms ascribed to David 
and more than a score of others to his chief singe *s and 
their families. There is no sufficient reason for reject- 
ing these ancient superscriptions. They have a real 
and unimpeachable historical value. They give the 
earliest accessible information respecting the origin of 
the compositions to which they are attached. They are 
in fullest harmony with all our a priori conclusions. 
They come down to us, along with the original text, 
from an age that had already become antiquity when 
the Septuagint appeared. The very musical notes that 
accompany them were unintelligible to the scholars of 
the Maccabaean times. 

Besides the period of David and his immediate suc- 
cessors, there is but one other in Jewish history when 
the writing of psalms could well have flourished : that 
which closely followed the exile. It was, at least, a 
true instinct that led the Greek translators to attach 
the names of post-exilian prophets to some of the 
nameless psalms which reached them. The harps 
that had been hung upon the willows in Babylon 
undoubtedly inspired the march of the homeward 
bound and beguiled their work of restoration. But the 

1 Cf. also the notable tribute of Sirach's son, Eccbis. xlvii. 8-11. 



366 The PentateiLcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

number of post-exilian psalms, whether considered as 
matter of history or of criticism, cannot have been 
large. They do not predominate in the collection. 
They may generally be distinguished from the original 
portions of it by features that are unmistakable. 

On these principles, then, the discussion in the 
present paper will be conducted: (i) That a large 
nucleus, if not the bulk, of the Book of Psalms origi- 
nated with David and his immediate successors. (2) 
That the titles are to be taken as genuine and authen- 
tic unless positive and convincing testimony to the 
contrary can be adduced. (3) That it is safe to argue, 
not alone from individual psalms, but from the spirit and 
teaching of the collection as a whole, especially the 
acknowledged earliest collection whose boundaries have 
already been indicated (cf. Ps. Ixxii. 20). Within 
these general limitations, simply taking care, in detail, 
that no just canon of biblical criticism be violated, we 
may move alike with freedom and with confidence. 

In the first place, then, let attention be directed to a 
few apparent verbal correspondences between a number 
of psalms and the Pentateuch, naturally implying the 
priority of the latter. When, for example, in the fifth 
psalm, which is ascribed to David,^ we hear one saying, 
*' O Jehovah ! In the morning thou shalt hear my 
voice ; in the morning / will make ready for thee!' we 
find the author very fitly and beautifully employing 
the exact original expression used in the Pentateuch 
for laying in order the wood and the victim on the 
altar of sacrifice (Gen. xxii. 9 ; Lev. i. J^ "^'^ vi. 5). 
When, again, in another place (Ps. vii. 13), the same 
alleged writer ^ declares ' that, if the sinner turn not, 

1 The contents of the psalm are in no respect out of harmony with the Davidic author- 
ship claimed for it. 

2 The psalms iii.-xix., excepting only v., vi., and xiv., even Hitzig regarded as forminij 
the genuine Davidic kernel of the whole Psalter. 



TJic Law and the Psalms. 367 

God will "whet his sword " of retribution, the intense 
realism and anthropomorphism of the figure startle us 
less, because we recall the fact that it likewise occurs 
in that old and high-wrought " Song of Moses " which 
crowns his closing work (Dent, xxxii. 41 1). In fact, 
this is its only other occurrence in the Old Testament. 
The eighth psalm is very generally conceded to be from 
the pen of David. It has already been shown ^ that 
not only the thought, but the precise order of it, 
is taken from the biblical narrative of the creation 
(Gen. i. 26 f.). It was not pointed out, however, that 
the dependence extends even to the etymology of the 
words ; and that when the Psalmist speaks of the 
Creator as making man "rule" over the works of his 
hands and of putting them "all under his feet," he has 
in mind, as it should seem, the yirdtl and I'^dJm of 
the primitive records (Gen. i. 26, 28), and insensibly they 
give its peculiar coloring to his style. In the following 
psalm (ix. 17 ;^ cf. xxxviii. 13; cix. ii.) we read that 
the wicked are snared in the work of their own hands. 
The Hebrew word so translated is first used in this 
figurative sense in Deuteronomy (xii. 30), where it is 
applied to the seductions of Canaanitish idolatry. 

The remarkable petition, a little further on (Ps. 
xvii. 8), 

' ' Keep me as the pupil of the eye ; 3 
Under the shadow of thy wings hide me," 

is a second, and a double one, of the many echoes of 
the sublime and most suggestive " Shirah " of Moses, 
found near the close of Deuteronomy (xxxii. 10, 11). 
The astounding, not to say paradoxical, epithet given 

1 See the introductory paper, p. 24. 

- The fact that psalm ix. is acrostic is no evidence that it is not Davidic. See 
Delitzsch, Co*n., in loco. 

2 Literally, " Utile man, J.iughler of the eye." 



368 TJlc PentatetccJi : Its Origin and Stncctnre. 

to Jehovah in the eighteenth psalm ^ (vs. 3) and often 
elsewhere in the collection, " My rock in whom I take 
refuge," is from the same prolific source (Deut. xxxii. 4, 
37). There is nothing more marked in the Hebrew 
poetical literature of the later times, or more full of 
sparkle, it may be added, than these gems borrowed 
from the ancient songs. Their setting may be changed, 
but they have a lustre, wherever found, peculiarly their 
own. Here is one, for instance, from the memorable 
paean of victory chanted by the Israelites on their 
escape from Pharaoh and the Red Sea. It is set in the 
crown of the composition : '' Jehovah is a ma7i of war, 
Jehovah is his name " (Ex. xv. 3). Who could ever 
forget the bold metaphor .? There is scarcely any end 
to the changes that are rung upon it from Moses (Deut. 
xxxii. 41 f.) down. To David, himself a man of war, 
it offered the very thought he needed for many an 
impassioned utterance like that which introduces the 
following outburst (Ps. xxxv. 1,2): — 

"Strive thou, O Jehovah! with them that strive with me; 
Fight against them that fight against me. 
Grasp the shield and buckler, 
And arise in my defence." 

In a context rich in reminiscences of the Pentateuch 
we find in still another psalm (Iv. 4) a rare expression, 
which, outside the history of Jacob and Joseph, appears 
only in the Book of Job. *'With a hatred relentless 
as that of Esau and unnatural as that of Joseph's 
brethren," the hunted fugitive seems to say: — 

''They threaten^ me with evil, 
And angrily assail me." 

1 The genuineness of the title which ascribes the composition to David is supported by 
2 Sam. xxii., where also the psalm is found. 

2 There can be little doubt that the figure of Ahithophel is before David's mind and calls 
forth the significant word from the patriarchal narratives (Gen. x.wii. 41; xlix. 23; 1. 15). 



TJic Law and the Psalms. 369 

To the Israelite of the exodus what more suggestive 
or thrilling sight, whether in camp or field, the Ark of 
the Covenant perhaps alone excepted, than the waving 
pennants of the several tribes (cf. Num. i. 52 ; ii. 2 ; x. 
14) ! We cannot well be mistaken therefore in suppos- 
ing, especially in view of the extreme rarity of the 
term, that it was with a direct historic outlook and 
inspiration that David wrote the stirring challenge 
(Ps. XX. 6) : — 

"We shout for joy in thy salvation; 
In the name of our God we display our banner ^ 1 

Such are simple specimens of the influence favorite 
words and expressions of the earliest Hebrew literature 
seem to have left on the earliest compositions of the 
Psalter. They might easily be multiplied. They are 
no unimportant element in the criticism and should not 
be overlooked. If they stood alone they would not be 
without their value. They represent, however, the 
weakest and hurnblest in that rich chorus of voices 
which throughout the Psalms bears witness to the 
overshadow^ing influence of the Mosaic literature. 

Attention is called accordingly, in the next place, to 
some of the abundant allusions within the same limited 
range of primitive psalms to fundamental facts of 
PentateucJi history. If we mistake not, the history of 
Joseph is referred to in the proem of the collection 
(i. 3, last clause).^ In the third psalm,^ when it is 
said : " But thou, O Jehovah ! art a shield about me," 
the great promise made to Abraham in Genesis (xv. i ; 

1 The word daghal is at home in Numbers, but outside our psalm is nowhere else 
found, except in Canticles. 

-It was written before Jeremiah" denn Jeremia kannte ihn; das Fluch-und Segens-? 
wort, Jer. xvii. 5-8, ist wie eine auslegende und aussmiickende Paraphrase." — Delitzsch. 
Com., in loco. Cf. Gen. xxxix. 3, 23. 

3 It is entitled l^ Dhavidh, and internal characteristics support the tradition. 



370 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

c£. Deut. xxxiii. 29) is clearly reflected. Further on, in 
the same poem (vs. 8), Moses' notable formula of invo- 
cation before the Ark of the Covenant, as it took its 
appointed place in advance of the host, is called to 
mind, as often elsewhere in our book, in the impas- 
sioned Qumdh Y^hovdh, ^' Arise, O Jehovah " (Num. x. 
35 ; cf. Ps. vii. 7; ix. 20). In the following psalm (vs. 
4),^ the circumstance of which so much is made in 
the Book of Exodus (xi. 7, etc.), that God had "put 
a difference " between Israel and its oppressors, seems 
to be reflected in the sentiment, '' Jehovah keepeth 
apart his beloved for himself," the unfamiliar word 
of the earlier work reappearing in the later. In 
the immediate context (vs. 7), too, the oft-recurring 
priestly benediction (Num. vi. 26 f.) is paraphrased 
and other evidences of the Torah's influence are not 
wanting. 

Then follow in succession references, as it should 
seem, to the memorable commission of Moses respect- 
ing Amalek (Ps. ix. 6 ; cf., in the original, Ex. xvii. 
14-16 ; Deut. XXV. 17 f.) ; to the blessing of Noah (Ps. 
ix. 13 ; cf. Gen. ix. 5) ; the formation of man from dust 
(Ps. ix. 18 ; cf. Gen. iii. 19) ; the overthrow of Sodom 
and Gomorrah (Ps. xi. 6 ; cf. Gen. xix. 24 f) ; ^ to the 
deluge (Ps. xiv. 2;^ cf. Ps. xxix. 10; Gen. xi. 5 ; xviii. 
21) ; the extraordinary condescension of Jehovah to his 
servant Moses in the matter of the vision (Ps. xvii. 1 5 ; 
cf. Ex. xxxiii. 20 ; Num. xii. 8) ; the exposure of Moses 
in his infancy (Ps. xviii. 17; cf. Ex. ii. 10, MdsJidJi) ; to 
the sublime record of the creation (Ps. xxiv. 2 ; cf. Gen. 

^ There is no reason for disputing the title which calls Psalm iv. a " psalm of David." 

2 Psalm xi. is acknowledged by Ewald and Hitzig to be D.avidic. 

3 Of Psalm xiv. Delitzsch says: " In dem Verwcrfungsurtheil iiber die sittlich-religiose 
BeschafTenheit der gcgenwlirtigen Menschhcit welches Psalm 14 mit Psalm lagemein hat, 
liegt zugleicli cine Bestatigiing fiir das /'' DJiavidh bcider; 14:7 abcr nothig uns nicht in 
die Zeit des Exils hinab." — Com., in loco. 



TJie Lazv and the Psalms. 371 

i. I, 2, 9 ; Ps. xxxiii. 6) ; ^ to Jehovah's memorable testi- 
mony concerning Abraham (Ps. xxv. 14 ; cf. Gen. xviii, 
17); 2 the famine that drove the family of Jacob into 
Egypt (Ps. xxxvii. 19 ; see word for "famine" here and 
found elsewhere in Gen. xlii. 19, 33 only) ;^ to the 
translation of Enoch (Ps. xlix. 16; cf. Gen. v. 24);* 
the solemn ceremonies attending the ratification of 
the covenant at Sinai (Ps. 1. 5 ; cf. Ex. xxiv. 5-8) ; ^ the 
confusion of tongues at Babel (Ps. Iv. 10 ; cf. Gen. x. 
25 ; ^ Jacob's halting-places on his return from Padan 
Aram (Ps. Ix. 8, 9; cf. Gen. xxxiii. 17, 18)/ and to the 
passage of the Red Sea after the deliverance from 
Egypt (Ps. Ixvi. II, 12).^ Within the compass of the 
first seventy psalms, that is, in a series of compositions 
ascribed almost without exception to King David, and 
none of them containing matter in conflict with such a 
claim, we find apparent references to such momentous 
events in Pentateuch history as the creation of 'the 
world and of man, the translation of Enoch, the Deluge, 
the blessing of Noah, the confusion of tongues, promi- 
nent incidents in the life of Abraham and of Jacob, the 
fiery judgment on the cities of the plain, the bondage 
in Egypt and the miraculous deliverance from it, to 
Moses by a singular allusion to the origin of his name, 
as well as other personal references, and to the solemn 
giving of the law at Sinai. Scarcely a leading fact or 
personage, indeed, is overlooked. And yet, to appear- 

^ Ewald and Hitzig agree with Delilzsch in ascribing Psalm xxiv. to David. 

- Psalm xxv. contains nothing inconsistent with Davidic authorship. 

2 Psalm xxxvii. is said to be " by David," and Delitzsch pronounces it worthy of him. 

* Psalm xlix. is by the " sons of Korah." It has the doctrinal coloring of the Davidic 
psalms and need not be much later. 

^Psalm 1. is " by Asaph," but has no signs of a late period (cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 39). 

*> Psalm Iv. is said to be " by David," though Hitzig refers it to the time of Jeremiah. 

'' Psalm Ix. refers to David's war with the allied Syrians and Ammonites. 

8 The allusion to instrumental accompaniment in the title points at least to a pre- 
exilian origin for the psalm. 



3/2 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

ance, it is wholly fortuitous. There is evidently 
no effort made to reproduce a single fact as such 
and for its own sake. They spring unbidden to 
the singer's lips. The very freedom and deftness of 
manipulation, a touch as light as that which fell 
upon the harpstrings, attest the currency of the 
narratives and a common acquaintance of the people 
with them. 

But this is not all. The Law proper, the great body 
of legislation to be found in the Pentateuch, still more 
emphatically than the history, has left its impression on 
the minds of IsraeV s earliest song-writers. This law is 
cited by its historic title in the very opening stanza 
of the Psalter (i. 3 ; cf. Deut. xi. 18-20 ; xvii. 19 ; Josh, 
i. 8, and Ps. xl. 8, 9). The Deuteronomist's striking 
phrase, "sacrifices of righteousness," is taken bodily 
into the text in its original form a little further on 
(Ps. iv. 6 ; cf. Deut. xxxiii. 19). The fact that the 
orphaned and oppressed are the special wards of Jeho- 
vah, the poet reechoes also from the lawgiver's lips 
(Ps. x. 14, 18 ; cf. Deut. x. 18 ; xiv. 17 f. etc.).^ The pro- 
hibition of the codes against usury and the taking of 
bribes he not only seconds but adds to its motives the 
higher inducement that only thus can one become a 
friend and guest of God (Ps. xv. 4, 5 ; cf. Ex. xxii. 24 ; 
xxiii. 8 ; Lev. xxv. 37 ; Deut. xxiii. 2 ff.).^ 

It was by the law ("the words of thy lips," Ps. xvii. 
4) that the Psalmist professes to have been kept from 
the oppressor's paths. In that law there had been 

1 Psalm X. and xxxiii. are the only properly anonymous ones of the first book. The 
LXX. have joined the former to Psalm ix., and this is in harmony with the acrostic 
arrangement, the strophes of Psalm X. being needful to complete the alphabet. Hitzig, 
with Delitzsch and others, as we have already seen, regarded both psalms as Davidic. 

2 Psalm XV. is imputed to David and appears to have been composed during the rebellion 
of Absalom. Verse i seems to presuppose that Mount Zion was already honored with the 
presence of the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam. vi. 17). 



The Law and the Psalms. 373 

left, as it were, the Deity's footprints amongst the 
ways of men. In following them, the human step, too, 
might be unwavering (vs. 5). It had ''judgments" as 
well as '* statutes " (Ps. xviii. 23 ; of. Deut. vi. 2 ; vii. 1 1 ; 
viii. 11). It was "Jehovah's law" (Ps. xix. 8; cf. 2 
Kings xi. 12) ; no mere inward voice, but a summary 
of testimonies, precepts, commandments and ordi- 
nances, in the keeping of which there was great 
reward (vs. 8-1 1). When he says (Ps. xxvi. 6),^ " I will 
wash my hands in innocence ; And I will compass 
thine altar, O Jehovah," the Psalmist has undoubtedly 
in view the priestly calling of every Israelite and sig- 
nalizes one of the commonest acts of such a calling (cf. 
Ex. xix. 6 ; xxx. 20). The custom of sometimes offering 
sacrifices in the midst of trumpet-peals has left its 
mark, as might have been expected, on one of David's 
sweetest songs (Ps. xxvii. 6 ; cf. Num. x. 10). ^ He rec- 
ognizes it as a behest of God that he should seek his 
face (vs. 8) and " appear " before him (Ps. xlii. 3 ; cf. 
Ex. xxiii. 17, and the other codes) .^ With a freewill 
offering he would come and with sacrifices (Ps. liv. 8 ; 
cf. Num. XV. 3),* fulfilling from day to day his vows 
(Ps. Ixi. 9).^ Nothing, indeed, could be more desirable, 
in his view, than the lot of such as were chosen of God 
to dwell in his house and to be filled with the blessings 

1 Psalm xxvi. like Psalm xv. is appropriate to the period of Absalom's rebellion and shows 
the same longing for the sanctuary. That the " house " spoken of might be a tent is 
clear from Gen. xxviii. 17; Ex. xxiii. 19; xxviv. 26. 

- Psalm xxvii. is ascribed to David, and the " house of Jehovah " is still nothing 
more than a " tent" (vs. 4, 5). 

3 Psalm xlii. is a " maskil " of the " sons of Korah." It is the first psalm of the second 
book. The Korahite family was one of the most distinguished of the Levitical families in 
the time of David (cf. i Chron. xii. 6). And there is no sufficient reason for putting 
this composition much after his day. 

* Psalm liv. is Davidic in style and teaching, and in its superscription is dated at the 
period of Saul's persecutions. 

'' On Psalm Ixi. Delitzsch remarks : " Wir bleiben bei dem stolz ignorirten /^ Dhavidh 
und habendafur ein viel schlichteres Verstandniss des Psalm zum Lohne." — Com., in loc. 
It seems to have been composed on the occasion of the flight before Absalom. 



374 The P entateiich : Its Origin and Structure, 

thereof (Ps. Ixv. 5).^ " Let me," he exclaims, in strong 
hyperbole, "abide in thy tent ages. Let me hide under 
the cover of thy wings." As one of the elect com- 
munity it is in closest harmony and sympathy with the 
Levitical Torah that he finds himself in the ''courts of 
the Lord " (vs. 4). He, or another in the same spirit, 
says : — 

"I will enter thy house with burnt-offerings, 
I will pay to thee my vows ; 
Those which my lips have offered, 
And my mouth hath spoken in my distress. 
Burnt-offerings of fatlings I will bring thee, 
With the incense of rams ; 
I will offer bullocks with goats" (Ivi. 13 f.). 

This Hebrew poet, now, or circle of poets, of the 
tenth or eleventh century B.C., surely betrays no igno- 
rance of the Mosaic codes or the innermost core and 
essence of them. The impression they have left upon 
him, on the contrary, is fully as deep as the sentiment 
that Israel had a God, and standing as a people in the 
world. On the supposition that the Pentateuch was 
virtually complete and in its present form at that time, 
it would be unfair to expect, in a series of poems from 
David, or from contemporary pens, written in circum- 
stances in which these must have been written, more 
numerous or more specific allusions to it than such as 
we have found.^ In fact, this must be conceded by 

1 Psalm Ixv., although containing much the same matter and having, in general, the 
same style as Psalms viii. , xix., xxix., and like them imputed to David in the superscription, 
Delitzsch thinks cannot be so early. He refers in disproof to the fact that " es scheint also 
Entlastung Israel's und iiberhaupt der Volker vom Drucke einer Weltmacht gemeint zu 
sein." Cf. vs. 2, 7, 8. That is not so certain, however. And were it true, it need not 
refer to the empires of Babylon or Persia. 

2 Let the references to the Pentateuch in the first thirty chapters of Ecclesiasticus or the 
first half of the Book of Wisdom be compared with those of the first half of the Psalter 
and the larger number will be found in the earlier, not the later, work, in the preexilian, 
not the post-exilian, composition. 



The Law and the Psalms. 375 

critics who, while insisting that the bulk of the Torah 
arose after the seventh century, and the Levitical code 
subsequent to the exile, equally insist that the bulk 
of the Psalter, including many of the psalms we 
have been considering, is also post-exilian. If the 
compositions we have passed in review do not reflect 
the Mosaic period and a Mosaic Pentateuch, much 
less do they reflect the rabid legalism of the exulants 
from Babylon. They do reflect a Mosaic Pentateuch. 
It is precisely that which they reflect. They do mark 
the earlier and not the later stages of acquaintance 
with it and ethical appropriation of it ; the religion 
of Israel before it hardened into Judaism ; the religion 
of Israel and not the refinements of the scribes. 
And we fail to see how our critics can hope for 
commensurate returns from their concerted and 
determined efforts to dislocate the so-called " Davidic 
psalms " from their traditional position in the Scrip- 
tures. Summoned to bear testimony to a post-exilian 
Torah, they refuse to given even so much as a sign 
of acquiescence. If allowed to speak at all, — and 
they must be allowed to speak, — they can only 
utter themselves in condemnation of such an 
hypothesis. 

Nor are we yet done. There are several psalms, 
carrying upon them every mark of an origin in the 
royal period, of having been chanted, if any were, by 
David's and Solomon's Levitical choirs in the original 
temple at Jerusalem, that have also so clear a stamp 
of dependence on the Pentateuch and particularly on 
the priestly institutions of Leviticus as to deserve a 
special consideration. 

Take, for example, Psalm xvi. It is confessed by 
Hitzig that it betravs nothing inconsistent with its 



3/6 The Pentateuch: Its O right and Structure. 

claim to Davidic authorship.^ Its allusion to idolatry 
can be considered no anachronism at that time, as 
some maintain (c£. Judges xviii. 17 f.; i Sam. xix. 
13-16). But if it be not deeply rooted in the Penta- 
teuch, it would be a serious problem to tell whence 
its singular phraseology really comes. 

Its author distinguishes between drink-offerings 
properly and improperly made (vs. 4). He knows that 
prohibition of the Book of the Covenant forbidding that 
the names of idols should be so much as mentioned by 
loyal Israelites {ibid.; cf. Ex. xxiii. 13). He knows the 
promise that was made to the tribe of Levi that 
Jehovah would be his portion (vs. 5 ; cf. Num. xviii. 20 ; 
Deut. x. 9 ; xviii. i, 2), and how to associate with 
it that other precious memory that the chosen 
people were to be a peculiar people, a kingdom 
of priests (Ex. xix. 6). He says, in the same natural 
connection, giving a tropical force to the fact of the 
partition of the holy land among the tribes, that the 
^' lines have fallen" to him amid pleasant surroundings 
and that a "goodly heritage" is his {ibid.; cf. Josh, 
xvii. 5 ; Judges xviii. i). And he calls his heart his 
"glory," just as the patriarch Jacob had done in 
blessing his sons : a bit of philosophy and a mark 
of spiritual attainment withal that should not be 
overlooked (Gen. xlix. 6). 

Now, if the Pentateuch existed at the time David 
wrote this psalm, so many direct allusions to it within 
the space of less than half a dozen verses, allusions to 
its three alleged leading portions, to its characteristic 
codes, in fact to every book of it, are easy enough to 
explain. If there were no Pentateuch, on the other 

^He remarks, moreover: " Der Psalm, welchen gedrungene Kraft der Sprache, v. 4, 
sowie Frische und Anschaulichkeit des bildlichen Ausdruckes kennzeichnen, v. 4^, 11, 
eignet unzweifelhaft dem hbhern Alterthum." — Com. (Leipz. 1863), p. 79. 



The Lazv and the Psalms. 377 

hand, no written law and no trustworthy history, we 
are simply mystified by our investigations, not at all 
enlightened and edified. 

Psalm xviii. has been already three times cited in 
the present paper (vs. 3, 17, 23). Its genuineness is 
vindicated by the historical books, where it also appears 
in a somewhat altered form.^ It contains, however, 
unless we are at fault, not less than six additional 
reminiscences of the Pentateuch within the space 
of thirteen stanzas. The natural phenomena accom- 
panying the deliverance from Egypt and the giving of 
the Law furnish the groundwork of the thought in the 
seventh and following verses. The winged cherubim 
of the tabernacle also receive a passing notice (vs. 10). 
The words hdel and gur which it employs (vs. 31) 
are both antique and Mosaic (cf. Deut. xxxii. 4). The 
expression "high-places" (vs. 34) comes from the 
"Song of Moses" (Deut. xxxii. 13); and the bold 
announcement, " I will pursue mine enemies and 
overtake them, I will turn not back till they be 
consumed," from the song of the triumphing Israelites 
in view of Pharaoh's overthrow (Ex. xv. 9). 

Psalm xxiv. also has been already briefly cited. In 
its opening lines (vs. 2), as in Psalm viii., the primitive 
record of creation, as far as it concerns the work of the 
second day, is adapted to poetic measure. The expres- 
sion "fulness thereof" as related to the earth comes 
from the "Blessing of Moses" (Deut. xxxiii. 16). The 
third commandment reappears in the fourth verse. In 
the seventh and following verses the language pulsates 
vigorously with the thought that Jehovah's dwelling- 
place is with the historic ark, and that when it moves, 
he, the " King of glory," also moves, as the Book of 

1 " Die Davidiiche Authentic und so weit die Aussage der Ueberschrift in Zweifel zu 
Ziehen, gebricht es an jedem Grund." — Hitzig, ibid. p. 95. 



37^ The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structitre. 

Numbers had represented (ix. ; x. 35 ; cf. 2 Sam. vii. 6). 
The occasion celebrated seems to be the removal of 
the sanctuary from Kirjath-jearim to Mount Zion, 
For beauty of language and majesty of conception the 
following stanzas can scarcely be excelled (vs. 9, 10) : 

" Lift up, O gates, your heads! 
Lift up yourselves, ye ancient doors. 
That the King of Glory may come in! 
Who, then, is the King of Glory? 
Jehovah of Hosts ; 
He is the King of Glory." 

But far superior to any others in their bearing on the 
questions of Pentateuch criticism are the psalms num- 
bered in our collection xl., 1., and li. (in the Septuagint 
xli., li., lii.). The first and last are introduced as compo- 
sitions of David, the third as that of Asaph, who, as is 
well known, is represented as a poet, musician, and 
prophet of David's time (i Chron. xvi. 5 ; 2 Chron. 
xxix. 30 ; Neh. xii. 46).^ 

The superscription to Psalm li. tells us that it was 
written by David after Nathan's rebuke concerning the 
matter of Bathsheba (2 Sam. xii. i). Nothing could be 
more fitting to the circumstances. Already in previous 
utterances of his there has appeared evidence that all 
is not right with the singer (cf. Ps. vi., xxxviii.). Here 
the broken spirit casts off, as it were, its heavy load, 
and opens itself without reserve to the re-creating 

1 Ewald and Hitzig, to whom Delitzsch perhaps in this case may be joined, are inclined 
to date Psalm xl. at the time of Jeremiah, if not to make him its author. The figure of the 
pit, however (vs. 3), might quite as well have been taken from the experience of Joseph. 
And it has not a few peculiarities of David's style. But for our present purpose, the date 
as between B.C. 1000 and 600 can make but little difference. 

Of Psalm 1. Delitzsch says that it is " ein asafiche Originalpsalm " ; that is, it is not to 
be ascribed to some later member of the family, but to its head. The only objection of 
weight to considering the title of Psalm li. genuine is the allusion in verse 20 to building 
the walls of Jerusalem. But this is just what Solomon is said to have done (i Kings iii. 
1; ix. 15; cf. Josh. xix. 50; 2 Chron. viii. 2). 



The Law and the Psalms, 379 

influence of the Holy Spirit. Better might the Chris- 
tian heart deny itself the comfort of such a psalm as 
the twenty-third than part with this deep-toned miserere 
which appeals to a still more active consciousness and 
voices a sorer need. 

Now, however, we are concerned with another aspect 
of it. It is with sin and moral uncleanness that the 
sacrificial Torah is supposed to have particularly to do. 
Does our psalm make any allusion to its rites t The 
writer says : — 

"Purify mei with hyssop and I shall be clean, 
Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow." 

In the first half of the verse there is undoubted 
reference to the priestly custom of sprinkling lepers, 
and others ceremonially unclean, with water by means 
of a branch of hyssop.^ In the second half of the 
verse a no less characteristic regulation of the Levitical 
code is recalled and tacitly approved (Lev. vi. 27 ; xiii. 
54; xvii. 16, and often). 

David lays hold of the ancient law by its external 
features ; but it is clearly the kernel of it that he 
seeks. " Be thou, O God ! " he, in effect, says, " my 
priest without intermediary. Do thou for me, in 
reality, that which no son of Aaron can do except in 
form. Their poor ministry is for the flesh. With me 
it is the spirit that is sick, and faint, and corrupt." 
David looked beyond the outward ceremony of purifica- 
tion, and his prophetic, though troubled, soul — made 
capable of the prophetic impulse, we might almost say, 
by the greatness of his trouble — in the symbol saw the 
thing symbolized. And it is from the same illuminated 

1 Literally, " Un-sin me." 

2 The original word is found only in Ex. xii. 22; Lev. xiv. 4, 6, 49, 51, 52; Num. 
xix. 6, t8; i Kings v. 13. 



380 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

plateau, where clearer vision and a deeper experience 
have come to him, that what is said a little later is 
uttered (vs. 16, 17) : — 

" For thou delightest not in sacrifice, 
Else would I give it ; 

In offerings made by fire thou hast no pleasure. 
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit ; 
A heart broken and contrite, O God ! thou wilt not despise." 

Disparaging sacrifices ! As a sufficient means of puri- 
fication and pardon, as the final and only ground of hope 
— yes. How could he do otherwise.-* The man who 
knows what it is to be a sinner against God (vs. 6) does 
not need any Epistle to the Hebrews to inform him 
that his ultimate appeal must be to God. Dispar- 
aging sacrifices ! As an eloquent tribute of deepest 
human feeling and longing, whether of penitence or of 
gratitude — no. It is clear from the context, as well as 
from the whole teaching of Israelitish history, that he 
does not and can not disapprove of them in themselves 
considered. His very allusion to them attests the 
commonness of their use. And there were circum- 
stances, he immediately goes on to say, when God 
could " delight in sacrifices, in burnt-offerings and 
whole burnt-offerings " (vs. 20). ^ It was when his 
altars really smoked for him. It was when the offering 
really brought together the offerer and Him who was 
offered to ; when it had ceased to be a barrier and 
had become a bond and channel of spiritual communion. 
The whole spirit of the Psalms shows that this is the 
deeper thought which underlies the figure and unites 

1 Even if the unlikely supposition were to be admitted that the last two verses of the 
psalm are a later addition, it would be a still more unlikely supposition that, at any 
period within which th:iir origin would be allowable, they could have been added as a 
correction of King David's utterances. They must have been appended, if at all, to 
illustrate, and not to counterwork, his teaching as then understood. 



The Law and the Psalms. 381 

in one the otherwise incoherent utterances of the 
contrite singer. 

Let us turn now to the fortieth psalm. As we read, 
we can scarcely resist the feeling that it is a kind of 
response to the one we have just reviewed ; the praise- 
note, as it were, which in nearly all of David's composi- 
tions follows words of confession and prayer. God had 
heard his cry for help. He had lifted him out of the 
"miry pit." He had put a "new song" in his mouth. 
He exclaims : — 

"Oh, the blessedness of the man 
Who maketh Jehovah his trust ! " 

And naturally, then (vs. 6), he recalls the wonders 
God had wrought for Israel ; his "thoughts " for them, 
which were more than could be told. But it is the 
deeper thought, what is revealed to him as the under- 
lying purpose of all Jehovah's dealings with his people, 
that he finally fixes upon. 

** Sacrifice and oblation thou desirest not ; 
Ears hast thou hollowed out for me. 

Burnt-ofFering and sin-ofFering are not what thou requirest,! 
Then I said : ' Lo ! I come, 
In the roll of the book it is written for me ; 
To do thy will, O my God, is my delight. 
And thy law is written in my innermost heart.'" 

1 The pertinent remarks of Professor Green i^Moses aiid the Prophets, p. no f.) may- 
be here cited: " If Ezeklel is the inventor of sin-offerings [as SmenJ and our critics gen- 
erally maintain], Psalm xl. 6 must have borrowed them from him or from the Levitical 
Law, wh'ch he pioneered. Such language, when found in Micah vi. 8, Jer. vii. 22, is 
interpreted [Prof. R. Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 288] as affirm- 
ing that ' Jehovah has not enjoined sacrifice,' that he has, in fact, given no law upon the 
subject; the Levitical Law was consequently unknown. But if Psalm xl. 6 can speak thus 
after Ezekiel's Law, or the Levitical Law, had been announced, Micah and Jeremiah could 
do the same; and then, for all that appears, the Levitical Law may anted ite their utter- 
ances. Or if Psalm xl. was prior to the time of Ezekiel, the sin-offering was not 
introduced by him; though not mentioned elsewhere, it was part of the preexilic ritual 
and Moses may have ordained it after all." 



382 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

It is precisely the spirit that ruled in the psalm of 
penitence just considered that rules in these utterances 
of victorious confidence and rejoicing. The writer 
recognizes that what God most wanted on the part of 
his people was open ears and an obedient will. The 
Law he had given them^ would otherwise fail of its 
purpose. What mattered it, that it was written in a 
book, if the heart did not honor and delight in it ? 
What mattered a ritual of sacrifice if there were not to 
be also a spirit of self-surrender, symbolized and set 
forth by the outward offerings. '' Hence," says the 
Psalmist, '* I come with the book written for me ; but 
not with the book alone ; I come with that which will 
please thee better : a heart to interpret the book and 
a will to keep it." 

Does such language surprise us on David's lips ? It 
ought not. It is true that we find the prophets of the 
sixth century looking forward to just such an inward 
reception of the Law and response to it as one of the 
blessings of the better days to come (Jer. xxxi. 32). 
But it had also been the demand of every great leader 
of Israel from Moses down (Deut. xxx. 6, 16; Prov. xxi. 
3 ; Hos. vi. 6; Mic. vi. 6-%\ Is. i. 11-15). It was simply 
putting in another form a sentiment that David might 
have heard many a time from the lips of his own revered 
teacher and friend ; one, in fact, he could not well have 
failed to hear, since it was the reverse of that which 
had characterized the fatal policy of his predecessor, 
whose condemnation had been spoken in the never-to- 
be-forgotten words : " Behold, to obey is better than 
sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams " (i Sam. 

1 It was a law that, obviously, had to do with sacrifice and oblation, with burnt-offering 
and sin-offering; else why does he mention them at all in this connection? 

2 " Die Aussage Davids ist der Widerhall dieser Aussage Samuels mit wclcher deni 
Kcinigtum Sauls das Todesurtheil gcsprochen und also dcm klinftigen Kbnigtiim Davids 
der Weg gottgefalligcn Bestandes vorgezeichnet ward." — Delitzsch, Com., in loco. 



The Laiv and the Psalms. 383 

XV. 22).2 To deny, on the other hand, David's author- 
ship of this psahn and to transfer it to the time 
of Jeremiah, or even later, does not help the matter 
for our critics. It is not a voice that witnesses 
to God's invariable attitude toward animal sacrifices. 
It is, as we have said, a chorus of voices whose 
sound cannot be escaped within the confines of 
Hebrew history. 

Nowhere, however, is the sentiment that animal 
sacrifices were never intended to serve as a commuta- 
tion for that which is due from man to God and to his 
fellow-man more earnestly set forth than in Psalm 1. 
The repudiation and rebuke here of a doctrine so gross 
borders even on contempt. And it is instructive to 
find that the man from whose mouth we hear such 
language, in this instance, is himself a Levite. As in 
the case of Jeremiah, whose priestly office did not 
prevent his putting obedience before outward rites 
(vii. 21 f.), so Asaph is enough of a Levite at heart to 
see what was the inner meaning of the code he served. 

The psalm opens with a summons from God to " his 
people " to meet him in solemn conference. They are 
his "favored ones"; the same who had made^ a cove- 
nant with him by sacrifice. Mark the significant 
words. They are in tender allusion and clearly, too, 
an approving one to what had occurred at Sinai when 
the law was given (Ex. xxiv. 5-8). Does he then forth- 
with proceed to disallow and denounce the offering 
of sacrifices ? He denounces their counterfeit ; the 
degeneracy and coarseness that can imagine him 
pleased with offerings that bear upward no incense of 
real devotion. This is the impeachment he brings : — 

1 The use of the participle indicates the continuance of the act of making a covenant. 
It had HDt b;ca dDne once for all, but was an ever-present condition of the divine relation- 
ship to his people. 



384 The Pentateuch : Its Origiji and Structure, 

*' Hear, O my people, and I will speak; 

Israel, I will testify against thee — 
I, that am God, thine own God ! 

Not for [the lack of] thy sacrifices do I reprove thee ; 
For thy burnt-offerings are ever before me. 

1 need not to take bullocks out of thy house, 
Nor he-goats out of thy folds ; 

For mine is every beast of the forest, 

And the cattle upon a thousand hills. 

I know every bird of the mountains, 

And the abundance [brood] of the meadows is with me. 

Were I hungry, I would not tell thee, 

For mine is the world and its fulness. 

Do I eat the flesh of bullocks, 

Or do I drink the blood of goats ? 

Rather sacrifice unto God thanksgiving, 

And pay thy vows unto the Most High. 

Then call on me in the day of trouble ; 

I will deliver thee, as one honoring me. 

But to the wicked, God saith : 

What is it to thee, to speak of my statutes, 

And to take my covenant in thy mouth ? " 

Can there justly be any misunderstanding of these 
pathetic and earnest words } They are simply the 
interpretation and appHcation from the Hebrew national 
and historical point of view of the sacrificial Torah. It 
had become to many a law of license and a cloak of 
wickedness. Evil men mouthed Jehovah's ** statutes " 
and "■ covenant," but inwardly hated both and secretly 
cast his words behind their backs. It was in this way, 
at least, that the son of Sirach understood and inter- 
preted the sentiments of our psalm. Writing in the 
midst of the ever-narrowing regulations of post-exilian 
Judaism, he was in no danger, surely, of depreciating 
unduly the outward rite. Paraphrasing at length the 
thoughts of our auther, he docs not hesitate to follow 
his copy in its warmest denunciations of hypocritical 



TJie Laio and the Psalms. 385 

ecclesiasticism.^ Indeed, what more absurd hypothesis 
could well have been conceived than this, that among 
the Israelites all ordinary laws of growth were reversed 
and the ethical idea of sacrifices, as a natural product, 
preceded and ushered in the custom of sacrificiug, that 
that was not first which was natural but that which was 
spiritual ? This is what the advocates of a purely 
natural development in the institutions of Israel soberly 
ask us, in opposition to every known principle of 
development, to believe. 

On the contrary, the poets and prophets of Israel 
have done just the work that was to have been expected 
of them. They have emphasized the symbolical sig- 
nificance of the Law over against its ceremonial features, 
and rather than the ceremonial. With them these 
legal regulations are less a matter of objective contem- 
plation and stud)', and more a motive. They are 
impressed with the fact that the best Israelite, after all, 
is he who is one inwardly. And this is as consonant 
with the nature of the literature they represent as it is 
with the advanced stage they occupy in the development 
of revelation. Without introducing anything actually 
new, they mark a successful effort toward a better 
adjustment of the old. Forms of worship begin more 
and more, thanks largely to them, to pulsate with the 
spirit of worship. The general is more and more 
translated into the special and individual. " Bless ye 
the Lord, O house of Israel " comes to take on, even 
for the "house of Israel," the more significant and more 
Christian form : "Bless the Lord, O my soul" ! 

1 "Sacrificing what is wrongfully gotten is an offering of mockery. 

And the mockeries of transgressors are not accepted." 
" He that washeth himself because of a dead body, if he touch it again, 

What availeth his washing?" — Ecclas. xxxiv. i8, 25. 
"He that requiteth a good turn offereth fine flour; 

And he that giveth alms sacrificeth praise." — Ibid. xxxv. i. 



386 The PentateucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

But it is time to direct attention, briefly, to another 
particular in which the earhest portions of the Psalter 
bear witness to the essential integrity of the Pentateuch 
in their day. We find them not only penetrated in 
general with the same ethical spirit ; but they are 
stamped with the most fundamental and characteristic 
principles of the Israelitish religion as there formally set 
forth. Let us illustrate by some examples. 

One of these principles, common as we have already 
elsewhere shown to every part of the legislation, is the 
demand for a single national sanctuary. To what 
extent it remained an ideal most imperfectly attained 
in the earlier Jewish history, our examination of the 
historical books has demonstrated. Still, an ideal it 
always was, earnestly striven for by such as were 
capable of being much moved by ideals. The triumph 
of the national spirit in David's time and the centrali- 
zation of power in him gave an opportunity for a 
corresponding centralization in the national worship 
never before enjoyed. He makes no law on the sub- 
ject, it is to be carefully noted. He acts, in every 
respect, as though it were a matter of course ; that is, 
as though there had always been a Law and that, now, 
Providence had given a clear field for its execution. 
At the earliest opportunity he brings the Ark of the 
Covenant to Mount Zion. Thither the tribes were 
to go up (Ps. cxxii. 5) : — 

"The tribes of Jehovah — it was a precept in Israel — 
To give thanks to the name of Jehovah." 

Such a tacit assumption on the king's part and the 
universal, unresisting assent of the tribes at the start 
are witnesses, that must not be overlooked, to what all 



TJic Law and the Psalms. 387 

along had been the national goal. And the Psalms 
throughout reflect this spirit. 

The abode of Jehovah is looked upon as the so-called 
"holy hill," that is, Zion (iii. 4). He had chosen it for 
a habitation and there he would dwell forever. The 
mountains of Bashan vainly sought to rival it in his 
esteem (Ixviii. 15, 17). On Zion he was enthroned 
(ix. 12; Ixv. 2). His dwelling-place, as of old, was the 
humble tabernacle which was there pitched (v. 5 ; 
X. I, 4 ; XV. i; xviii. 6; Ixi. 5). From Zion went 
forth the salvation of Israel (xiv. 7) : Zion, on the 
extreme north, a joy of the whole earth (xlviii. 3 ; 1. 2). 
There praise waited for Jehovah and amid its stillness 
ascended the thankful song (Ixv. 2). 

These are simple illustrations of the many echoes in 
the oldest parts of the Psalter to this clear teaching of 
the Pentateuch. And the surprising thing about it is 
that the Psalms echo no other sentiment whatever. 
One may be safely challenged to discover a single 
exception to the rule. Not only surprising, but inex- 
plicable, would be the circumstance, if the Hebrew 
religion were understood to be still in a chrysalis state, 
if this sentiment first took palpable shape and began 
really to be insisted on four centuries later, during the 
reforms of King Josiah. 

Again, we discover just as little trace of uncertainty 
in our collection of early psalms, in their representa- 
tions of God. It is certain that they never recognize 
more than one God, the Jehovah-Elohim of the Penta- 
teuch and the prophets. Heathen deities are, indeed, 
alluded to ; but so far from being put on a level with 
Jehovah, or regarded as, in any sense, his rivals, there 
is rather a refusal to acknowledge them as gods at all 
(xvi. 4 ; xcvii. 7). The bulk of the Psalter is taken up 



388 The PentateiLch : Its Origin and StriLcttire. 

with the direct worship of Jehovah, with grateful 
and tender words of adoration and praise exclusively 
for him. 

If we were to trust the representations of our critics 
it was a very different state of things that actually 
existed for centuries after David lived. Until the 
prophets, one by one, and sporadically, began to intro- 
duce a more exclusive spirit, the religion of Israel, it is 
said, was practically syncretistic. Israel had, nom- 
inally, a national deity, as other nations about it, and 
his name was ''Jehovah." But the practice of the 
notorious Jeroboam I. and the still more notorious 
Jeroboam 11. best illustrates the actual faith of 
the people. Their worship was a compromise ; their 
religion made up of a fusion of elements in which 
a great deal of pure heathenism was mingled with 
a modicum of what is now known as Judaism. And 
such a course, it is declared, was then, in that stage of 
development, inevitable and legitimate. The acknowl- 
edged best men of the times, iconoclasts like Elijah, 
took no exception to matters that, in a later day, w^ere 
branded as idolatrous and criminal. 

It has already been shown what violence is done by 
such a theory to the facts of Israelitish history as 
recorded by Israelitish historians and to the real con- 
sensus of prophetical opinion and teaching. It is even 
more at war with the Psalms. In what one of them is 
there to be detected so much at a glance of favor 
toward Moloch or Chemosh, Baal or Ashtoreth t 
Where is the scintilla of evidence to be found in any 
verse of these one hundred and fifty separate composi- 
tions, running through a period of at least six hundred 
years, that Jehovah was looked upon as merely the 
God of Israel } It is an alleged David, rather, who 



TJlc Laiv and the Psalms, 389 

speaks for all Hebrew singers when he says, in tender 
invocation to Jehovah (xvi. 2-4) : " Thou art my 
Lord : I have no good beyond thee ; " and adds : 
"Their griefs shall be multiplied who wed with other 
gods [ ? exchange God for an idol] : — 

" I pour not out their drink-offerings of blood. 
Nor take their names upon my lips." 

It is the same representative David, we are informed, 
who elsewhere utters himself quite to the same intent : 

" None is like thee among the gods, O Lord ! 
Neither are there any works to be compared with thine. 
All the nations whom thou hast made. 
Shall come, O Lord ! and worship before thee, 
And they shall give glory to thy name. 
For thou art great and doest wonders ; 
Thou art God alone " (Ixxxvi. 8-1 1). 

The ideas concerning God and the epithets applied 
to him in the Psalms, so far from being Canaanitish or 
syncretistic, are, in fact, more nearly Christian in their 
depth and definiteness of conception. Without fear of 
vagueness we still accept them as expressing our own 
supposed more philosophic notions. Is it, for example, 
his relations to the material universe that we would 
characterize as being above it and the author of it } 
How compactly and how eloquently it is set forth in 
the couplet (xxxiii. 9) : — 

"For he spoke and it was done; 
He commanded and it stood fast " ! 

Is it his own self-existence and eternity } In one of 
the oldest compositions of the collection, one, indeed, 
ascribed to the lawgiver of the wilderness himself,^ we 

1 Psalm xc. 2. " Es giebt kaum ein Schriftdenkmal des Altertums, welches das 
Ueberlieferungszeugniss seiner Alstammung so glanzend rechtfertigt, wie dieser Psalm." 
— Delitzsch, Coin., in loco. 



390 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Strncture. 

find this most impressive reflection of the mystery : 
" Before the mountains were brought forth or ever thou 
didst give birth to the earth and the world, From ason 
to aeon thou art God." They recognize and character- 
ize, as do no other compositions of antiquity outside the 
Scriptures, the divine omniscience and omnipresence 
{ibid, cxxxix.), and, above all, the divine holiness that 
can suffer nothing unclean, insincere, or inwardly 
untrue in its sight (xxii. 4 ; xxiv. 3 f. ; Ixxi. 22). They 
find in God that which it has always been so hard 
for the natural man to think of as possible attributes 
of the same great being : an harmonious blending 
of matchless power with a mercy and condescension 
equally matchless : — 

"One thing has God spoken; these two have I heard: 
That power belongeth unto God ; 
And that to thee, O Lord, belongeth loving-kindness " (Ixii. 12). 

So, too, in the form of the worship paid to Jehovah 
we discover that the Israelitish psalmody is entirely 
consistent with the presuppositions of Israelitish 
history. It is never presented to us as a worship at 
second-hand, but direct and personal. It is never set 
forth as a worship through symbols and outward repre- 
sentations of the Deity, but a worship of One who is 
supposed to know every secret of the heart (i Sam. 
xvi. 7 ; Ps. vii. 10, etc.). There is, in short, just as 
little a breach of the second commandment observable 
in the form and spirit of the Psalms as of the first 
commandment. 

What has been already said of Zion as the recognized 
seat of the Jehovah cultus cannot be harmonized with 
the hypothesis of a recognized adoration of images there 
or elsewhere. We hear of the "holy hill," the *'taber- 



TJie Law and the Psalms. 391 

nacle," the ''sanctuary," the "throne of Jehovah " ; but 
we hear of no orderly worship save of him who dwelt 
between the cherubim, nothing whatever in approval of 
the bamoth and their ceremonies ; nothing in honor of 
the star-images of Amos's memories (v. 26), or of the 
molten calf of Hosea's denunciations (viii. 5) ; or the 
"asherahs" of Deuteronomy. It is noted and enjoined 
that men appear before Jehovah in '' holy attire " 
(xxix. 21); but that any admiration is expended on the 
probably quite as sumptuous pagan rites we have no 
hint. Now the psalmists cannot have been ignorant of 
that which, if the records are true, the ordinary Israelite 
knew so much. They cannot have approved of that 
concerning which they are so significantly, and as 
we believe purposely, silent. We fail to see good 
reason why other places and forms of worship than 
those of Zion find no reflection in the Hebrew 
Psalter, if they were ever, as is alleged, as legitimate 
and fully sanctioned as those of Zion within the 
periods covered by our psalms. Here, too, there is 
an argiLinentum e silentio worthy of the consideration 
of our critics who build so massively upon it 
elsewhere. 

Not only is there no outspoken approval, nor even so 
much as a hint of acquiescence, there are positive utter- 
ances of disapproval of any such efforts at a dualistic 
service (xxxi. 7; xliv. 21 f.). There is an all-pervading 
spirit that speaks louder than words, an attitude toward 
Jehovah and his service that precludes the opposite, 
points to a contrast in fact as well as in act. It is the 
taunt of the other sort of people, for example, the men 
who walk by sight, that seems to reach us in the heart- 
less interrogatory (xlii. 4, 11): ''Where is thy God.''" 
It is the men who bow at other and prohibited altars 



392 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin a7id Structure, 

who shoot out the lip and wag the head, saying in mien 
as well as in words (Ps xxii. 8, 9) : — 

"He trusted in Jehovah, let him release him; 
Let him rescue him, for he delighteth in him." 

It could not have been they who made a fetish of the 
sun or the moon, who were wont to utter themselves so 
humbly and yet so profoundly in the language of their 
inspired singer : — 

" When I see thy heavens. 
The work of thy fingers ; 
The moon and the stars. 
Which thou didst create ; 
What is a mortal man 
That thou bearest him in mind?" 

It could not have been the loyal Israelites, of whom 
David says (Ps. xvi. 3) that they are the '' noble of the 
earth," in whom is all his delight, who bowed down to 
images of stupid oxen, trying to persuade themselves 
that somehow Jehovali dwelt in them and would mani- 
fest himself through them. It was the loyal Israel 
rather, those who were in sympathy with David and 
joined David in those words, scarce comprehensible 
indeed, but elevating and sweet, and a sure antidote 
one might think against the seductions whether of 
the Egyptian apis or the gilded calf of Samaria 
(Ps. viii. 6 f.) : — 

"Thou hast made him little less than God, 
And with glory and honor thou hast crowned him! 
Thou gavest him rule over the works of thy hands ; 
Thou hast placed them all under his feet. 
Sheep and oxen, under him are they all ; 
And alike, the beasts of the field, 
The birds of the air and the fish of the sea." 



The Laiv and the Psalms. 393 

And there is another hypothesis of our critics in 
which, whatever may be their conclusions from the other 
Scriptures, they cannot have fully reckoned with the 
Psalms. It is that the prophets of the royal and subse- 
quent periods were far from being in harmony with one 
another or with the people to whom they brought their 
messages ; that, above all, the prophet was at war with 
the priest, jealous of his influence and contesting step 
by step his innovations and growing usurpations. Of 
all this, there is not one trace in the psalms of David 
and his successors. Not one inharmonious note do we 
here discover, not one element of discord. The singer 
"Asaph" was known not only as Levite, but also as 
prophet. The sons of Korah, recognized as Levites of 
the Levites, are recognized in their productions as first 
of all Israelites. Their songs are strikingly national in 
tone. They honor the sanctuary but in no spirit of 
ecclesiasticism. Both, like Ethan, are significantly 
introduced as David's singers. They sing in his meas- 
ures. They reflect his spirit. They teach his doctrine. 
To find any marked cleavage-lines dividing these 
compositions such as is supposed to exist in the law ; 
to find opposing tendencies and dissentient opinions on 
such matters as the cultus, the history, the moral and 
political outlook, the dangers, the goal of Israel, we 
will venture to say is impossible. Priestly, kingly, and 
prophetical elements are found mingling in every part 
and blending without disharmony. It is *' Asaph," 
perhaps, who makes most of God as Judge. It is the 
"sons of Korah" who chiefly exalt him as King. It is 
David who strikes every cord in the gamut and in an 
ethical and doctrinal, as well as an historical, sense is, 
above all others, the "sweet psalmist of Israel." 

It might be said now that, as in the case of the 



394 ^/^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structnre. 

historical books, so here in the Psalms, we are to 
consider that we have a carefully edited edition of 
these works which needs as careful a sifting of original 
from secondary and foreign material. But the project 
of an expurgated edition of the Psalter, we venture to 
say, might as well be given up, if it be entertained on 
the principles we have been considering. To expur- 
gate the Psalter of all testimony hostile to the Well- 
hausen theory of Israelitish history, or out of harmony 
with it, would be to expiuige the Psalter, at least its 
acknowledged earlier portions. It would be, by some 
means, to rid ourselves altogether of a psalmist David, 
to level Zion, and silence the witnesses to a pure 
worship of Jehovah in this period of the united 
kingdom. That, indeed, is what is aimed at, virtually 
if not directly, in the efforts now making to move the 
collection from its historic base and set it bodily down 
in the morass of the exile. 

Or it might be said that we have not in our present 
Psalter the actual songs of the people, but only of those 
who frequented the sanctuary at Jerusalem ; and that 
this collection does not fairly represent the habitual 
practices and spiritual attainments of even that part of 
Israel whose centre of worship was Solomon's temple. 
Very true ; it is freely admitted that it is quite unlikely 
that it does fairly represent them, generally, in these 
respects. When did a hymnbook ever represent the 
habitual practices, or even the spiritual attainments, of 
any people.-^ The hymnbook of the Lutheran Church 
of Germany is far enough from representing German 
Lutheranism as it appears in the daily lives, or even in 
the current beliefs, of many of its members. The spirit 
of Wesley's hymns, in all cliarity we may say it, was 
never the spirit to which Wesley's followers would lay 



The Law and the Psalms, 395 

claim as having either fully or widely attained it. The 
hymnbook records the aspirations, the hopes, the sup- 
plications, the confessions, the longings, the victories 
of the church in its best state. It is always something 
to be accounted for, however. It is itself an effect and 
not simply a cause. Of what was the Israelitish hymn- 
book an effect t Something went before Luther's 
hymns that made them possible. What went before 
David's } It makes no difference whether the composi- 
tions we have been considering were in the mouths 
of few or many ; whether they were sung in Samaria 
or only in Jerusalem ; in the homes of the people or 
only at the temple. They presuppose something of 
which they are the outgrowth. 

If the Pentateuch previously existed in essentially its 
present form ; if its laws were to a considerable extent 
known to the people and had been somewhat, though 
to a much less extent, observed by them ; if Israelitish 
history had actually taken the course that is recorded 
in the historical books, we have a sufficient historical 
and ethical basis for the Psalter. We know whence 
these poems derive their present form and peculiar 
methods of expression ; we know from what grand and 
all-sufficient source under God they receive their inspira- 
tion and motive power. We can see how well adapted 
they were to worshipers of those times, how they 
stimulated the conscience, inspired the zeal, and melted 
the heart, just as our best hymns do ours. But without 
the Pentateuch and the illumined history, a Saul before 
David, and a full-sized Moses before the noble Samuel, 
we have a stream without a fountain, we have some of 
the ripest fruits of biblical training without the trace 
of anything that could properly be called a Bible. 

Finally, I would direct attention to what might be 



396 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

called the personal element in the Psalms : in other 
words, to what the psalmists themselves were, as indi- 
cated and illustrated in what they said. We have 
been considering these compositions as products of 
cultivation, the result of long - continued processes. 
Their authors, in a still more marked and indisputable 
sense, are products of a continuous training and 
development. May we not, possibly, find them, in 
themselves, quite as valuable witnesses to the pre- 
Davidic history of Israel as recorded in the Scriptures 
as we have found their works } We will examine one 
or two characteristic traits of these men, which, because 
they are characteristic and uniform, may be fairly 
attributed to one man, whom we will name the Psalm- 
ist, be he David, or some other, who took on the senti- 
ments and wrote in the spirit of the master. This 
Hebrew poet, to appearance, was quite unconscious of 
being, to such an extent as it has proved, a singer for 
others than himself. He was first of all and essentially 
an independent singer. It was his own longings, 
hopes, confessions, supplications, hosannas, that he 
gave utterance to. And his melodies are no less his 
that they served to voice so well the higher aspirations 
of multitudes of his countrymen and voice still our own. 
He had, for example, a personal consciousness that he 
was a sinner and a longing to be free from sin. More 
than once is the peculiar exclamation, so emphatic in 
its form in the original, "O the blessedness!" made 
the vehicle of his surcharged feeling and desire in this 
respect (Ps. i. i, 2 ; xxxii. i, 2) : — • 

" O the blessedness of the man, 
Who walketh not in the counsels of the wicked, 
Nor in the way of sinners standeth, 
Nor in the seat of scoffers sitteth ! 



TJic Law and the Psalms. 397 

But his delight is in the law of Jehovah. 

O the blessedness of him, 

Whose transgression is taken away, 

Whose sin is covered ! 

O the blessedness of the man. 

To whom Jehovah no guilt imputeth 

And in whose spirit there is no guile ! " 

Four of the so-called penitential psalms (vi., xxxii., 
xxxviii., li.) are inscribed in our collection to the pen of 
David. Since the time of Origen the Christian church 
has found no means more fit, on certain occasions, to 
express her own grave sense of ill-desert. In one, the 
true doctrine of sin is set forth in terms so discrimi- 
nating and exact that we search in vain elsewhere in 
the Scriptures for a parallel. It is held to be more 
than a sum of sinful acts : it is a nature that is perverse ; 
something more than drops of blood on the driven 
snow : the whole snow is crimson. Whatever the 
wrong done to the neighbor, it is first and chiefly a 
wrong against God, who sees the heart and judges the 
secret motive. It is an offence that has struck so 
deep that in some phases of it, as he elsewhere con- 
fesses (xix. 13), it has gone beyond the ken of the 
sinner himself, so that he must cry out : " Who can 
understand his errors 1 From hidden faults do thou 
declare me free." 

Confessions so profound and supplications so intense 
as we find here recorded, where the Psalmist pleads, as 
for his life, to be washed thoroughly from his iniquity 
and to be cleansed from his sin, declares that he knows 
his transgressions and that his sin is ever before him, 
that he cannot be content until God has created within 
him a clean heart and renewed a right spirit within 
him, are not to be passed lightly over even by those 



398 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

who are seeking only for criteria of periods and of 
growths in these ancient documents ; are not to be 
hastily passed over, especially by such. They are a 
product of Hebrew life and experience. They are not 
ethnic, not even Shemitic, in the general sense. I have 
before me an Accadian penitential psalm, one of the 
best specimens that I have been able to find in ancient 
profane literature.^ It is about as long as the fifty-first 
psalm. It confesses sin and deprecates wrath. There, 
however, the comparison ends. Its confession is only 
of a sin of ignorance. Its prayer is directed to a 
pantheon and not to God. It expects to be heard, 
apparently, for its much speaking.^ It dares to charge 
the superior powers again and again with injustice in 
language like this : — • 

" How long, O my god, who knewest (though) 
I knew not, shall (thy) strength (oppress me) ? " 3 

What made the difference, now, between the Acca- 
dian psalm and that of David } As a certain writer has 
expressed it with reference to another of the composi- 
tions of the Psalter : There is " underlying this poem, 
from the first line to the last, the substance of philo- 
sophic thought, apart from which, expressed or under- 
stood, poetry is frivolous, and not in harmony with the 

'^Records of the Past (vol vii. 151 f.). Cf. what Isaac Taylor says of another psalm 
containing some of the characteristic elements of the fifty-first: " Thus stripped of his 
modern self, let him read the sixty-fifth psalm, and let him open his heart, and mind, too, 
tj admit the largeness of its intention, the width of its lookout upon the world, the just- 
ness of its theism, — if indeed a Creator is acknowledged, and if the Creator be good also, — 
the warmth of its piety, and the gladsomenessof its temper, and the landscape freshness of 
its images; and withal the preparation which is made in its exordium for the outpourings of 
a grateful piety, by the open confession of sin and the deep consciousness of it as the 
reason of the divine displeasure. This ode supposes — it cormotes — an instituted conj^rega- 
tional worship, a temple, a liturgy, and a teaching! " — Isaac Taylor, Spirit of Hebrew 
Poetry, p. 206 f. 

2 " For the tearful supplication of my heart sixty-five times let the name be invoked of 
my god." See line 30. 

8 See line 13 et passim. 



The Law and the Psalms. 399 

seriousness of human life : this psalm is of a sort 
which Plato would have written, or Sophocles — if only 
the one or the other of these minds had possessed a 
heaven-descended theology." ^ 

Notice, moreover, some of the reasons which seem to 
prompt the Psalmist in his desire to be rid of sin. A 
principal one is that sin is offensive to God and will 
meet with certain retribution at his hands. There is 
no subject more often on his lips. The man who 
ascends the hill of the Lord to stand in his presence 
must have clean hands and a pure heart ; be one who 
has not lifted up his soul to evil nor sworn in deceit 
(Ps. xxiv. 3 f.). Jehovah's eyes behold, his eyelids try 
'' the children of men " (xi. 4). He is not only a righteous 
God himself, but he proves the depths of every heart 
(vii. 10). Beginning, in fact, with the first psalm, and 
going straight through the second till we come to the 
end of the collection, there is nowhere any lack of 
evidence that in the Psalmist's mind there is nothing 
that God loathes like sin, and that to be a friend of 
God and enjoy his favor he, too, must loathe it and put 
it away. 

Nor is there any difficulty in comprehending what 
the Psalmist brands as morally offensive and sinful. 
There is no vacillation or hesitation discoverable in his 
delineations. He defines the character he condemns 
by special terms, which, however much they may be 
confounded in our translations, have apparently always 
their fixed valuation and meaning with him. He 
describes it, again and again, in all the detail of its 
hatefulness and deformity. He uses the appropriate 
device of poetic parallelism to set it forth as the total 
opposite of that toward which he struggles and is 

1 Isaac Taylor, ibid. p. 208. 



400 The PentateitcJi : Its Origiit and Stj^ucture. 

approved of God. He prays and seemingly as one 
fully conscious of what his words mean — in language 
which we with all our precision of philosophic state- 
ment may still adopt (xxvi. 9 ; xxviii. 3) : — 

" Gather not my soul with sinners, 
Nor with blood-stained men my life. 
Draw me not away with the wicked, 
Nor with the workers of iniquity ; 
Who speak kindly with their neighbors, 
While evil is in their hearts." 

He may not, it is true, be always free from doubts 
concerning the retributive justice of his God, especially 
when he beholds the prosperity of the wicked, that 
they have not the trouble of other mortals. Some- 
times, indeed, it almost seems to him that he has 
cleansed his heart in vain and washed his hands in 
innocence. But to give utterance to such a thought 
would be, he says, to be faithless to the generation of 
God's children. It would be, above all, to fail to 
understand the lesson of God's sanctuary (Ps. Ixxiii. 
passim). The generation of God's people ! The sanct- 
uary ! What was the secret, then, which they carried 
and which was also the secret of Providence and of 
Israelitish character } 

It may be said, now, that all this does not prove 
beyond dispute that the Psalmist had the ceremonial 
law before him or that it antedated his time. Very 
true. It is not simply after ceremonial holiness that 
he is striving. It is not ceremonial impurity which he 
mostly characterizes as sin. On the other hand, it 
must be remembered that it is not ceremonial holiness 
which is the sole requirement of the Pentateuch or 
of the Levitical institutions. It is not even their 
principal requirement, but the loyalty and love of a 



The Law and the Psalms. 40 1 

consecrated heart (Lev. xix. 18 ; Deut. vi. 5). And 
might it not be expected that a poet, if anybody, would 
look and reach toward the ideal ? that, especially, an 
inspired poet would take in that of which rites and 
ceremonies were only the symbol and preparation ? 

The "mystery of the blood" he may not have 
fathomed. What Old Testament writer has clearly 
done so, if we except Isaiah (liii.) ? But could he have 
reached a higher level of revelation or of experience 
than he has done in the petition (Ps. li. 9) : " Un-sin 
(thou) me with hyssop and I shall be clean : Wash 
(thou) me and I shall be whiter than snow." He sees 
in the rite only a symbol, it is true, and not a type. 
But the rite he does not fail to see, or the essential 
thing about it, whether as symbol or type, that it is to 
the priest-king, Jehovah, to whom he must look for 
pardon and that to him he will not look in vain. In 
this circumstance, after all, we find the culmination of 
biblical teaching, both of the old covenant and the 
new. And that we find it here in the Psalms, even in 
their earliest portions, is something to be accounted for 
by those who believe in the natural evolution of the 
Israelitish, as of every other religion.^ 

Another specially noticeable trait of our -Psalmist, as 

^ Cf. Delitzsch, Cotn. ueber die Psaltneu (1873) p. 53 f. Perowne has some pertinent 
remarks concerning the psalmists' attitude toward sacrifices ( The Psalms, Andover, 1882, 
vol. i. p. 47) : " He evidently did not regard those sacrifices, as so many Christian 
writers have regarded them, as having in the case of those who offered them in penitence 
and faith a spiritual efiicacy. Their only efficacy to him was the efficacy which the 
law itself assigned to them; they were the instruments of restoring him, when he had 
transgressed, to his place as a member of the theocracy, a citizen of the visible kingdom of 
God. But they did not confer or convey the retnissiofi. of sins. They were external, 
and their efficacy was external. . . . How far the Jewish believer saw into the typical 
meaning of his sacrifices is a question which cannot now be answered. . . . But the 
typical meaning and the real efficacy are two very different things. In truth, as has been 
truly argued (McDonnell's Dounellan Lectures. Appendix to the First Sermon), if we 
assign to the type the virtue of the antitype, if we make the remission of sins procured 
by the one coextensive with the remission of sins procured by the other, we destroy the 
type altogether. The sacrifice had no moral value. Hence the Psalmist says , not 
sacrifice, but a broken heart." 



402 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Striictnre. 

displayed in many different compositions, is the evident 
closeness of his personal relationship to God. When 
every allowance has been made for poetic license and 
oriental glow, there is a most remarkable residuum left 
needing to be accounted for. It is not so strange that 
we hear the apostle John saying, " Behold what manner 
of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we 
should be called the children of God" (i John iii. i); 
or the apostle Paul declaring, "For me to live is 
Christ " (Phil. i. 21)! They stand in the noontide 
blaze of revelation. But we have in this collection of 
old Israelitish songs, and on its opening pages, some of 
them, at least, dating from the foundations of the first 
temple, expressions of trust and confidence in God, of 
a tender, absorbing communion with him, that yield to 
nothing which the New Testament can offer. We are 
embarrassed, in fact, at the very outset by the 
universality and excess of this element in the Psalter. 
It will be no easy task by mere examples to give an 
adequate idea of either its richness or its importance 
in our ethical and, in so far here, our critical valuation 
of the Psalms. 

There is, for instance, the bold contrast which the 
Psalmist sees between himself and those who are 
'^ without God" and seek their highest good in his 
gifts and not in him (iv. passim) : — 

" Jehovah keepeth apart his beloved for himself: 
When I call him, Jehovah heareth me. 
There are many who say, 
' Who will show us what is good ? ' 
Lift upon us, O Jehovah, 
The light of thy presence! 
Thou hast put gladness in my heart, 
More than in the time their corn and new wine increased. 



The Law and the Psalms. 403 

In peace I will lay me down, 

And at once will sleep, 

For thou, O Jehovah, when I am alone, 

Makest me dwell securely." 

In another place he hesitates not to pour out his 
complaints to his heavenly Friend (vi.), detailing them 
one by one, just as a child might do in its mother's ear, 
and as he goes on it is pleasant to see how his heart 
is lightened and his voice takes on the ring of gladness 
and deliverance. He never forgets, however, what 
sort of a being Jehovah is, so as to presume upon his 
condescension. He knows that he is righteous and 
that only "the righteous shall have vision of his face" 
(xi. 7). But confidence and love are to him no presump- 
tion. '' My shield," he says, '' is upon Jehovah " 
(vii. 1 1). He cannot keep within his own bosom the 
exuberance of his joy. If his case be exceptional, he 
certainly sees no reason why it should not be the rule. 
Out of an evident experience he exclaims (xxxiv. 9) : — 

" O taste and see that Jehovah is good, 

How blest the man who taketh refuge in him " ! 

" Cast thy burden on Jehovah, 

And he will sustain thee" (Iv. 22). 

" Though one fall, it shall not be at full length, 

For Jehovah supporteth him with his hand" (xxxvii. 24). 

Note the significant, endearing other titles which 
he applies to him whose final title is Jehovah. He is 
a "rock," a "shield," a "fortress," a "deliverer," the 
soft "brooding of wings," a "refuge," a "cleft rock." 
In fact, the sentiment now so current in Christian 
circles in the sweet lines, 

" Rock of ages, cleft for me. 
Let me hide myself in thee," 



404 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

is a sentiment that was almost as current in David's 
time. And at once what a longing and what a satis- 
faction is voiced in utterances like these (xlii. i ; 
xxviii. 4) : — 

" One thing have I asked of Jehovah, 

That will I seek after: 

That I may dwell in the house of Jehovah, 

All the days of my life." 
" As the hart panteth after the waterbrooks 

So panteth my soul after thee, O God." 

How could we spare from our Bibles, even with the 
gracious assurances of the Master concerning the 
Father's love and care for us, such an abandonment of 
trust in the divine Providence as is expressed in the 
twenty-third psalm, beginning and carrying through to 
the end the thought, — 

" The Lord is my Shepherd, 
I shall not want " 1 1 

Or what would it cost us to give up one such psalm as 
the sixty-third, where as on the chiming silver bells 
changes are rung on the opening sentiment, — 

*' O God! thou art my God; earnestly I seek thee"? 

But in nothing perhaps is the Psalmist's intimacy of 
union and communion with God more clearly demon- 

1 " This is an ode which for beauty of sentiment is not to be matched in the circuit of 
all literature. In its way down through three thousand years or more, this psalm has 
penetrated to the depths of millions of hearts; it has gladdened homes of destitution and 
discomfort; it has whispered hope and joy amid tears to the utterly solitary and forsaken, 
whose only refuge was in Heaven. Beyond all range of probable calculation have these 
dozen lines imparted a power of endurance under suffering, and strength in feebleness, 
and have kept alive the flickering flame of religious feeling in hearts that were nigh to 
despair. The divine element herein embodied has given proof, millions of times repeated, 
of its reality and of its efficacy, as 2i. for)nula of tranquil trust in God, and of a grateful 
sense of his, goodness , which all who do trust in Him may use for themselves, and use it 
until it has become assimilated to their own habitual fulness." — Isaac Taylor, ibid. p. 77 f. 



The Law and tJie Psalms. 405 

strated than in the strength of confidence and the 
boldness of courage it gives him respecting death and 
the future beyond it. It begins already in the 
sixteenth psalm (vs. 8-1 1), where, having said that he 
sets Jehovah before him always, he adds : — 

" So my heart is glad, my spirit exulteth ; 
My flesh, too, abideth securely. 
For thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol, 
Nor let thy beloved waste away in the grave. 
Thou wilt make known to me the path of life : 
In thy presence is fulness of joy ; 
At thy right hand are pleasures forevermore." 

In like manner in the seventeenth (vs. 14, 15), where, 
in contrast with the men of the world whose portion is 
in the present life, he exclaims : — 

"As for me, in righteousness 
Shall I have vision of thy face ; 
I shall be satisfied, when I awake with thy likeness." 

Again in the twenty-third (vs. 4), which seems to 
cover in its brief compass the whole area of possible 
human experiences : — 

"Yea, when I walk through the valley of death^s shadow, 
I will fear no evil ; for thou art with me." 

And in a connection so common in the other examples, 
in the forty-ninth : — 

" But God will redeem my soul from the dominion of Sheol, 
For he will receive me." 

And, finally, in Psalm Ixxiii. (23-26), in a beauty and 
tenderness of expression that cannot fail to move the 
stoutest sceptic even: — 



4o6 The Pe^itateiich : Its Origin and Structure. 

*' But as for me, I am ever with thee; 

Thou holdest with thy hand my right hand. 

With thy counsel thou wilt guide me, 

And afterward receive me to glory. 

Whom have I in heaven but thee? 

And with thee, I delight not in the earth. 

My flesh and my heart fail, 

But God is the strength of my heart. 

And my portion forever." 

Union with the Lord — what else is the ground of 
hope for immortality and eternal life under the new 
economy.'* "Because I live," said the Master, ''ye shall 
live also" (John xiv. 9).^ Union with the Lord him- 
self, that is also the final ground of hope for life and 
happiness beyond the grave under the old economy. I 
am well aware of the objection that will be made to 
such a use of these psalms. It will be said that 
they are of exceptional import, that they represent 
individual, sporadic attainment only and by no means 
that of the masses of Israel. 

Let it be admitted that this is true. It should by all 
means be admitted as probably true. Still the question 
remains. How came it about that individuals, that 
anybody, reached a pitch of development so amazing in 
times so early and, as is alleged, so crude and immature ? 
No hypothesis of a later religious " coloring " given to 
documents ancient in themseves, such as is made to 
account for many supposed anomalies in the historical 
books, will here avail. Nay, the very abundance of 

1 Rowland Hill, it is said, was accustomed for many years before his death to repeat 
over to himself often this simple stanza: — 

" And when I 'm to die, 
Receive me, I '11 cry ; 

For Jesus has loved me, 1 cannot tell why; 
But this I can find: 
We two are so joined, 
That he '11 not be in glory and leave me behind." 



The Law and the Psalms. 407 

religious teaching here is one of the strongest proofs 
that that of the historical books is not coloring at all, 
but only the natural texture of the fabric. Here, at 
least, web and woof are of one pattern and one stuff. 
It is not peculiar expressions that attract our attention : 
it is compositions that are peculiar throughout ; it is 
psalms and the men who wrote them. How is it 
possible that we have works of this nature and men of 
this stature } A Pentateuch largely from the pen of 
Moses and his contemporaries will not be so difficult 
a problem when this problem is settled. 

We can comprehend how such an Israelitish singer 
as we have been listening to, in some important 
respects so far beyond Moses and his work, supposing 
that the Pentateuch was his work, was the 
crown of a certain development, but as its virtual 
beginning he seems to us an impossible character. 
We can see, for example, how it would be possible for 
a David to grow into this intimacy with Jehovah and 
this voluminous expression of such intimacy, when we 
think of Abraham, who was called the ''friend of God" ; 
of Moses, who spoke with him face to face ; of Samuel, 
who from childhood on responded to the divine call 
with a "speak Lord, for thy servant heareth " ! But, 
if you reverse the pyramid, putting the apex where the 
base should be, the Psalmist somehow in the place of 
the Patriarch, and admit no regulative norm of holy 
living and aspiration such as the so-called Mosaic insti- 
tutions offer, the matter becomes simply inexplicable 
to us. 

I read in one of the daily journals the following 
sentiment, quoted from a sermon on last Lord's day : 
" The very first chapters of Genesis teach us that 
man's surroundings deteriorate in obedience to a 



4o8 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

deterioration in man himself. The inward Eden is 
related to the outward Eden as cause and effect. 
Tenement-house reform, for example, taken as the 
handmaid of other movements deserves great praise, 
but taken alone is of little value. No fact is more 
evident than that certain stages of civilization require 
certain corresponding surroundings. Place a family in 
a house that is above it, and the family will either 
emigrate or degrade the house to its own level. Any 
attempt to elevate degraded man by simply changing 
his surroundings is like attempting to elevate the 
unhatched chicken into a robin by tinting the shell, 
or to precipitate spring by shoveling off and melting 
the snow upon your sidewalk." 

One chief trouble with our critics has been that 
they have not carried their induction from facts, their 
study of symptoms, far enough. They have marked 
almost exclusively, and dwelt upon, the outward evi- 
dences of deterioration in Israel. They have largely 
failed to mark it as deterioration. They have seemed to 
forget that on the hypothesis of a degenerate and fallen 
race, the outward paradise to be regained might be ex- 
pected to follow, and sometimes follow very gradually, 
the inward paradise which is its ground. They have 
been all too ready to draw immediate conclusions from 
evil surroundings, and too slow to note the signs of 
high ethical and spiritual attainment in spite of evil 
surroundings. Without achieving a really complete 
survey of all the circumstances, they have adopted as a 
leading principle of their reasoning the shallow maxim 
that " circumstances make the man." While if there 
be one lesson more than another that the history of 
human progress and enlightenment teaches, it is that, 
under an all-controlling Providence, the man, if he be 



The Law and the Psalms, 409 

a man, makes the circumstances. " For every house is 
built by some one [even the house of Hebrew history 
and worship]; but he that built all things is God" 
(Heb. iii. 4). 



XL 



LITERATURE OF THE PENTATEUCH AND THE 

RELATED CRITICISM OF THE 

OLD TESTAMENT/ 



Aaron. Com. in Pentateiichuin. Jena, 1710. 

Aben Ezra. Handschriftlicher Com. tteber Exodus. Prag, 1840. 

Abenmelech. Scholia in V. T. Ven., 1518. 

Abicht. Exercitat. de Servoru7n Hebrceor. Acquis. Leipz., 1704. 

Abrabanel. Cojn. in Pent. Mosis. Frankf., 1708. 

Abrabanel. Coin, in Prophetas Prior es. Leipz., 1686. 

Ackermann. Introd. in Libros Sacros Vet. Foederis. Ed. Tertia. 

Viennae, 1853. 
Adler. " Der Versohnungstag inder Bibel." Zeitschrift f. Alttest. 

Wissenschaft. Nos. 1,2. 1883. 
Ainsworth. Annotations on the Five Books of Moses, etc. Lond., 

1639. Reprinted, Glasg., 1846. 
Airy. Notes on the Earlier Heb. Script. Lond., 1876. 
Alard. Pericopa Pentat. Bib. Triglossometrica. 161 8. 
Albo. Gruftd u. Glaubenslehre d. Mos. Religion. Frankf., 1838. 
Alcuimus. Qncestiones in Genesin. Hagen, 1529. 
Alexander, A. Hist, of the Israelitish Natio7i. PhiL, 1853. 
Alexander, W. L. " Age and Authorship of the Pent." Sunday 

Mag., May, Oct., 1868. 
Alford. Genesis, t\Q.., for English Readers. Lond., 187 1. 
Alford. The Book of Genesis, Q.\£.. Coninientary . Lond., 1872. 
"Alleged Geolog. Ev. of the Antiquity of Man." Brit. Quarterly, 

Apr., 1863. 
Allen, G. "Who was the Primitive Man?" Fortnightly Rev., 

Sept., 1882. 
Allen, J. H. "Criticism of the Old Test." Unit. Reviezu, \\\. 135. 
Allen, J. H. Hebrew Men and Times. Bost. and Lond., 1861. 
AUix. Reflex, sitr les cinq Livres de Moyse. Lond., 1687. 

^ There has been no effort to make this list exhaustive. A large number of titles, in 
fact, were omitted at the last moment for want of space. It will be found, however, to 
include the more important books and articles, old and new, relating to the Pentateuch 
and the criticism of the Old Testament as especially bearing on the Pentateuch. Rev. 
Ernest C. Richardson, Librarian of the Hartford Theological Seminary, has rendered 
valuable assistance in its collection and verification. 



Lite feature of the Ptiitatciich. 41 1 

Aim, V. d. Theologische Bricfe an die Gebildeten der Deidschen 

Nationl 3 Bd. ^di. i.. Das Alte. Test. Leipz., 1862. 
Alting. De Vaticinio Patj-iaj'chae Jacobi. Franeker, 1660. 
Ammon. Nova Versio Gi'ceca Pentat. ex unico S. Marci Biblio- 

thec(^ Codice Veneto. Erlang., 1790. 
Andr6. Expos. Apologctique de la Theol. du Pentat. Paris, 1849. 
Andrews. " The New Pentateuch Criticism." Heb. Student, Dqc, 

1882. 
Anger. De Onkelo Chaldaico. Leipz., 1845. 
Anti-Colenso . Lond., 1863. 
Aretius. Com. in Pentatenchjiin. Bern, 1602. 
Argus. Was Adam the First Man Created ? Lond., 1878. 
Argyll. Primeval Ulan. Lond., 1869, 
Argyll. " Recent Speculations on Primeval Man." Good Words, 

March, 1868. 
Arnaud. Le Pentateugue Mosaique defendn. Paris, 1865. 
Arnold, A. See Tuch. 

Arnold, J. M. Genesis and Scie7ice. Lond., 1875. 
Arundell, Scientific Value of Tradition. Lond., 1879. 
Askenazi. Notes et Com. sur le Pentateuque. Leghorn, 188 1. 
As true. Conjectures sur les Memoir es Orgitiaux, dont it par ait que 

Moyse s'est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genese. 

Bruxelles, 1753. 
Attersol. Commentary upon Numbers. Lond., 1618. 
Atwater. The Tabernacle of the Jews. 2d. ed. New York, 1877. 
Auberlen. " Die j\Ies. Weissagungen d. Mos. Zeit." Jahrb. f. 

Dents. Theol., 1858, p. 778. 
Augusti. Grundriss einer Historisch-Kritischen Einleitimg iiis 

Alte Testament, 2te Aufl., Leipz., 1827. 
Augusti. See Hopfner. 
Augustine. " Ouaestiones in Heptateuchum."' Opera, tom. iii. 

p. 674, ed. Migne. 
Auscher. Sur le Veritable Caractere de la Lai Mosdique. Besan- 

9on, 1876. 
Autenrieth. D. Urspnmg der Beschjieidung, Qtc. TUbing., 1829. 
"Authorship of Genesis." Canad. Monthly, xiii. 409. 
Babington. Con fortable Notes np^n the Pent. Lond., 1637. 
Bacher. Ibn Esrds Einleit. zu seineni Pentateuch-Commentar , als 

Beitrag zur Geschichte d. Bibel-exegese beleuchtet. Wien, 1876. 
Bachraann. Die Festgesetze d. Pentateuchs. Berlin, 1858. 
Bachmann. Das Buch d. Richter ausgelegt. BerUn, 1867. 
Back. Geschichte d. J'udischen Volkes u. seifier Liter atur. Lissa, 

1878. 
Baehr. Symbolik d. Mosdischen Cidtus. 2te Aufl. 2 Bde. 

Heidelb., 1874. 
Baer. With Franz Delitzsch is publishing a critical text of the 

Hebrew O. T. Of the Pent, only Gen. has as yet appeared. 
BaldcAveg. Das Zeitalter der Richter. Zittau, 1877. 
Balfour. "The Sinai Covenant." British and For. Ev. Rev., 

July, 1877. 



412 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Striictiwe. 

Balgarnie. " A Chapter in Antediluvian Chronology." Expositoi-, 

1878, p. 449; 1880, p. 215. 
Baltzer. D. Bibl. Sch'dpfungs-geschichte. Leipz., 1867-72. 
Bannister. Epitome of the Laws, Lit. and Relig. of the Jews. 

Lond., 1861. 
Barclay. Heathen Mythology Corroborated, etc., by Scripture. 

Lond., 1884. 
Baring-Gould. Heathenism and Mosaisin. 2 vols. Lond., 1869. 
Baring-Gould. Origin and Development of Relig. Belief. 1869. 
Baring-Gould. Legends of Old Test. Characters. 2 vols. Lond., 

1871. 
Barradas. Ltinerarium Filiorum Israel ex yEgypto in Terrain 

Repromissionis. Coimbra, 161 7. 
Barrett. Old Test, d^iticism. 2 vols. Lond., 1847. 
Barrows. " Mosaic Narrative of the Creation.'" Bibliotheca Sac. 

xiii. p. 743- 
Barrows. " Mosaic Six Days and Geology." Ibid., xiv. p. 61. 
Barrows. "Missionary Spirit of Psalms and Prophets." Ibid., 

xvii. p. 457. 
Barry. Introd. to Stiidy of Old Test. Lond., 1856. 
Bartlett. From Egypt to Palesti7ie. New York, 1879. 
Bartlett. "Authorship of the Pentateuch." Bibliotheca Sac. xx. 

p. 799; xxi. pp. 495, 725. 
Bartlett. Sources of History in the Pentateuch. New York, 1883. 
Bate. Philos. Principles of Moses Def elided. Lond., 1744. 
Bate. Transl. of Pent, from the Hebrew. Lond., 1773. 
Baudissen. Jahve et Moloch. Leipz., 187 1. 
Baudissen. "Ursprung d. Gottesnamens 'Idoj.''^ Zeitschrift f. 

Hist. Theologie, 1875, iii. 
Baudissen, Stiuiienz. Seinit. Religionsgeschichte. Leipz., 1876-79. 
Bauer, B. Die Religion d. Alien Testaments. 2 Bde. Berlin, 

1838, 1839. 
Bauer, B. " Der Mosaische Ursprung d. Gesetzgebung d. Pen- 

tateuchs Vertheidigt." Zeitsch.f. Speculative Theol., 1836, 
Bauer, E. Streit der Ki'itik mil Kirche u. Staat. Bern, 1844. 
Bauer, G. L. Lehrbuch der Hebr. Alterth'ilmer. Nurnb., 1797. 

2te Aufl., von Rosenmuller, 1835. 
Bauer, G. L. Beschreibung d. Gottesdienst. Verfassung der alten 

Hebr'der. 2 Bde. NUrnb., 1805. 
Bauer, G. L. Hebr. Mythologie des Alten u. A^. Test. 2 Bde. 

Nlirnb., 1802. 
Bauer, G. L. Entwurf einer Historisch-Krit. Einleitung in d. 

Schrift. d. A. T., Nurnb., 1794 if. 
Bauer, G. L. Handb. d. GeschicJde d. Hebrli. Natioti von ihrcr 

Entstehung, etc. Nlirnb., 1 800-1 804. 
Baumgarten. Theolog. Conimeiitar zum Pentateuch. Kiel, 1842. 
Baur, P". C. Die Naturreligion des Alterthums. Stuttg., 1824. 
Baur, F. C. " Ursprung. Bedeutung d. Passafestes u. d. l^eschneid- 

ungsritus. Tubing. Zeitschrift f. Theologie, 1832, p. 47. 
Baur, F. C. " Der. Ilcb. Sabbath u. die Nationalfeste d. Mosaischen 

Cultus." Ibid., p. 125. 



Literatttre of the Pcntateitch. 413 

Baur, G. A. L. Sechs Tabellen ilber die Geschichte d. Is. Volkes. 

Giessen, 1848. 
Baur, G. A. L. D. weltgeschichtliche Bedeutung d. Is. Volkes. 

Ibid., 1847. 
Baylee. Genesis mid Geology. Liverpool, 1859. 
Beach. Hist. Value of the First Eleven Chaps, of Gen. Bost., 

1844. 
Bechor-Schor. Cojti. ziuji Pentateuch. Ed. by Jellinek. Mlinchen, 

1856. 
Beecher. ' ' Logical Methods of Professor Kuenen." Presbyt. Rev., 

Oct., 1882. 
Beecher. " Historical Evidence vs. Critical Evidence." Christian 

Thought, Nov., Dec, 1884. 
Beecher. " Chronol. of Period of the Judges." Old Test . Student , 

Jan., 1884. 
Beer. Leberi Abrahajns nach d. Judischejt Sage. Leipz., 1859. 
Beke. Researches in Prijneval History. Vol. i. Lond., 1834. 
Bellamy. History of All Religions. Lond., 1813. 
Bellermann. De Usu Palceographice Hebraicce ad Expiicanda 

Biblia Sacra, etc., 1804. 
Bellermann. Handb. der Bib. Liter atur. Erfurt, 1787 ff. 
Bellermann. Die Urini it. Thwnmiin. Berlin, 1824. 
Bellermann. Ueber die Alte Sitte Steine zu salben. 1793. 
Bellet. God's Witness in Prophecy a7td History (treats Gen. xlix.), 

Lond., 1883. 
Benary. De HebrcBorum Leviratu. Berlin, 1835. 
Ben David. Zur Berechnung u. Gesch. d. judischen Kalenders. 

Berlin, 18 17. 
Ben David. D. Religion d. Hebrder vor Mose. Berlin, 1812. 
Ben David. " Ueber Geschriebenes u. Mundliches Gesetz." 

Zeitsch. f. Wiss. d. Judenthujns , 1822, p. 197. 
Benisch. Colenso's Objections Crit. Examined. Lond., 1863. 
Benisch . Rise and Development of Judaism . Lond . , 1 874. 
Benson. The Mor. and Hist. Di-fficulties of Genesis. Hulsean 

Lect., 1822. 
Bergel. Mythologie d. alien Hebrcer. 2 Bde. Leipz., 1883. 
Berger, G. Beweis v. d. Fahigkeit d. ersten Menschen. Berlin, 

1780. 
Berger, J. Praktische Einleit. in'' s Alte Testament. Leipz., 1799. 
Berger, P. LAngedAstarte. Paris, 1879. 

Bergmann. Origine, Signification, et Histoire . . . de la Cir con- 
cision. Strassb., 1844. 
Bergmann. Jacob''s Traum zu Bethel erkldrt. Strassb., 1884. 
Bergson. D. Beschneidungv. Histor. Krit. u. Medicin. Stand- 

punkte. Berlin, 1847. 
Berliner. D. Massorah zum Targtun Onkelos. Leipz., 1877. 
Berliner. Targum Onkelos Herausg. u. Erldutert. Berlin, 1884. 
Berliner. See Raschi. 

Bernard. Creed and Ethics of the Jews. Lond., 1832. 
Bernhardi. Com. de Caiisis quibus effectum sit, ut regnum Judoe 

diutius persisteret quam regnum Is. Lowen, 1824. 



414 ^/^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Bernstein. Ur sprung d. Sagen v. Ad., Is. 21. Jacob. Berlin, 1871. 
Bernus. Richard Siition et son Histoire Critique du Vieux Testa- 
ment. Lausanne, 1869. 
B^ron. Origijie del Unique Couple Humain, ^iQ.. Paris, 1867. 
Berruyer. Histoire du Peupie de Dieu. Paris, 1728. 
Bertheau. Zur Geschichte d. Israeliten. Getting., 1842. 
Bertheau. Die Sieben Gruppen Mos. Gesetze. Getting., 1840. 
Bertheau. Beschreibung d. Lage d. Paradieses, etc. Getting., 

1847-48. 
Bertlieau. "Die Zahlen der Genesis in Kapitel 5 und. 11." 

Jahrbucher f. Deut. Theologie, 1878, p. 659. 
Bertheau. "Die alttestamentl. Weissagung von Israels Reichs- 

heniichkeit in seinem Lande." Jahrb. f. Deut. TheoL, pp. 

314, 595 (1859) ; P- 486 (i860). 
Bertheau. " D. Verschied. Berechnungen d. zwei ersten Perioden 

in d. Genesis." Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morg. Gesellschaft, 1845, 

p. 40. 
Bertheau. Richteru. Ruth erklart (2te Aufl., Leipz., 1883. Kurz- 

gefastses exeget. Handb.^. 
Berthet. The PreJnstoric World. Phil. : Porter and Coates. 
Bertholdt. Historisch-kritische Eijtleitung zn Sdmmtliche Kanon. 

u. Apok. Schriften d. Alt. u. N. Testame7its. 6 vols. Erlangen, 

1812-19. ^ 

Berthoud. "Les Elements Divins des Religions Antiques." 

Bibliotheque Universelle. Juillet et Aoiit, 1880. 
Bertram. DePolitiaJudaicatam civ. quain eccles. Ley den, 1651. 
Bertsch. Gesch. des Alien Bundes u. Volkes. Stuttg., 1857. 
Bible Myths and Parallels in other Religions. New York. 1883. 
' Biblia Polyglotta CompliU., 1517; Antwerp (Regia), 1572; Paris, 

1645 ; Lond., 1657. 
Biblical Archaeology, Trans, of Soc. of. Lond., since 1872. 
Bellinger. Dispidatio de Ctdtu Dei Rationali. Frankf., 1731. 
Belfinger. Notae in Spitiosae Methodiun explicandi Script. Ibid. 
Binnie. Proposed Reconstruction of Old Test. History. 3d ed. 

Edinb., 1880. 
Birks. Difficidties of Belief as to Creation, qXc. Lond., 1855. 
Birks. Bible and Modern Thought. Ibid., \Z62. 
Birks. Supernatural Revelation. Ibid., 1879. 
Birks. Pentateuch and its Anatojnists . Ibid., 1869. 
Birks . Exodus of Israel. Ibid. , 1 8 64 . 

Bissell, A. P. Law of Asylum in Is. Hist. Considered. Leipz., 1884. 
Bissell, E. C. The Historic Origin of the Bible. New York, 1874. 
Bixby. "Religious Genius of the Races." U7iitar. Rev., July, 

Aug., 1883. 
Blackie. " Mos. Acc't of Creation compared with Heathen Mythol." 

Good Words, Oct., 1861. 
Blake. " The Bible and its Critics." Cong. Quarterly, xi. 528. 
Blau. " Der Dekalog in. einer Samar. Inschrift aus d. Tempel d. 

Garizim." Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morg. Gcscllschaft, xiii. p 275. 
Blayney. Pentateuchus Hebr. Samaritanus. Oxford, 1790. 



Literature of the Pentatettch. 415 

Bleek. Brief an d. Hebr'der. 2 Bde. Berlin, 1840. Ed. by 

Windrath, Elberfeld, 1868. 
Bleek. *' Beitrage zu den Forschungen ueber den Pentateuch." 

St led. u. Ki'itken, 183 1, p. 488. 
Bleek. " Aphoristische Beitrage zu den Untersuchungen ueber den 

Pentateuch." ^o^^VimviSiQx'^Biblisch-Exegetisches Repert., 1822. 
Bleek. Einleitiing in d. Alte Testamefit. 4te Aufl. bearbeitet von 

Wellhausen, 'Berlin, 1878. Eng. trans, from 2d Germ. ed. 

2 vols., Lond., 1869. 
Bleek. De Libri Geneseos Origine atqiie Indole Histor. Observa- 

tiones. Bonn, 1836. 
Bloch. Studien ziir Geschichte d. Sainmlimg d. Alt. Hebrd. 

Literatiir. 2te Aufl., Wien, 1882. 
Bloch. "Wellhausen liber d. Alter d. Pries tergesetzbuches." 

Jud. Liter atitrbl. Nos. 15, 16, 41, 42, etc., 1879. 
Blunt, H. Exposition of the Pentateiich. New ed., Lond., i860. 
Blunt, J. H. Anjiot at ed Bible. Gen.-Esth. Lond., 1878. 
Blunt, J. J. Undesigned Coincidences in Old and New Testaments. 

9th ed. Lond., 1869. 
Blunt, J. J. Principles for Proper Understanding of the Mos. 

Writings. Lond., 1883. 
Boardman. "Genesis of Sin" (Gen. iii.). Prijiceton Rev., July, 

1880. 
Bodenheimer. Der Segen Mosis. Crefeld, i860. 
Bohl. Ziini Gesetz u. znm Zeiig7iiss. Wien, 1883. 
Bohme. Erkldriingen ueber d. Erste Buck Mosis. 1623. 
Bohmer. Das Erste Bnch d. Thora. Halle, 1862. 
Bohmer. Liber Genesis Pentateiichiciis . Ibid., 1^60. 
Bohlen. D. Gen. Hist oris ch-kr it . erldiitert. Konigsberg, 1835. 
Bonar. Com. on Leviticus. 5th ed., Lond., 1875. 
Bonfr^re. Com. in Pentateuchicm. Antw., 1625. 
Bonfr^re. Coju. in yos., Judg., et Ruth. Paris, 1631. 
Bonnet. Les Decouvertes Assyriennes et le Livre de la Genese. 

Paris, 1884. 
Borrhaus. Com. in Pentateuchum. Basel, 1557. 
Bosanquet. Expos, of the First Twenty Chaps, of Exodus. Lond., 

1876. 
Boscawen. "Bab. Creation Legends." Academy, July 27, 1878. 
Bouch^-Leclercq. Histoire de la Divination dans VAntiquite. 

4 vols. Paris, 1882. 
Bovet. Egypt, Palestine, and Phoenicia. Lond., 1882. N. Y., 1883. 
Boyce. The Higher Criticism and the Bible. Lond., 1880. 
Bramesfeld. Der Alttest. Gottesdienst, etc. Giitersloh, 1864. 
Brandis. Historischer Gewinn atcs der Entzifferung d. Assyr. 

Inschriften. Berlin, 1856. 
Brandt. "Die Assyrisch-Babvlon. Keilschrift Literatur u. d. 

Alt . Test . " Deidsch . Ev . 'Blatter ( 1 884) , ix . 3 . 
Braun. De Vestibus Sacerdotum HebrcEorum. Leyden, 1680. 

Amsterdam, 1698, 1701. 
Braun. " Aelteste. Bibl. Sagen." Ausland, 1861. 



41 6 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

Braun. Nat iir ges ch. der Sage. MUnchen, 1864-65. 

Bredenkamp. " Zu Gen. xx. 17, 18." Zeitsch. f. Kirch. Wiss. u. 

Kirchliches Leben, 1882, p. 671. 
Bredenkamp. Gesetz und Propheten. Erlangen, 1881. 
Brerewood. Diversity of Languages and Relig. Lond., 1614 fF. 
Briggs. " A Critical Study of the History of the Higher Criticism." 

Presbyi. Rev., Jan., 1883. 
Briggs. "The Little Book of the Covenant." 'Hebrew Student, 

May, 1883. 
Briggs. " The Greater Book of the Covenant." Ibid., June, 1883. 
Briggs. " The Hebrew Poem of Creation." Old Test. Student, 

April, 1884. 
• Briggs. Biblical Study . New York, 1883. 
Briggs. " Right, Duty, and Limits of Biblical Criticism." Presbyt. 

Rev., 1881, p. 551. 
Briggs. " The Argument e Silentio.'''' Journ. of Soc. of Bib. Lit. 

and Exegesis. January-June, 1884. 
Brightwell. Notes on the Pentateuch. Lond., 1840. 
Brill. Bijbelstudien. Vol. L has studies on the Pentateuch. 

Leyden, 1876. 
Broadley. Internal Evidence of the Religion of Moses. 1805. 
Brown, F. Assyriology : its Use and Abuse in Old Test. Study. 

New York, 1885. 
Brown, F. " New Testament Witness to the Authorship of Old 

Testament Books." Journ. of Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, 

July-December, 1882. 
Brown, F. " The Books of Chronicles with special Reference to 

those of Samuel." Andover Rev., April, 1884. 
Brown, R. "The Archaic Solar-Cult of Egypt." Theol. Review, 

October, 1878. 
Brown, W. The Tabernacle: its Priests and Levites. 2d. ed. 

Edinburgh, 1872. 
Brown, W. Antiquity of the Jews. Lond., 1820. 
Browne, E. H. Pent, and Elohistic Psalms. Lond., 1863. 
Browne, H. Handb. of Hebrew Antiquities. Lond., 1852. 
Bruce. The Chief End of Revelation. Lond. pnd N. Y., 1881. 
Brugsch. Bibel und Denkmaler. Leipz., 1875. 
' Brugsch. Gesch. yEgyptens unter d. Pharaonen. Leipz., 1877. 
■^ Brugsch. A History of Egypt under the Pharaohs. 2d ed. 

Lond., 1 88 1. 
Brugsch. Religion u. Mythologie d. alien ^gypter. Erste Halfte, 

Leipz., 1884. 
Brugsch. Der Bau d. Tempels Salo?no^s nach der Koptischen 

Bibelversion. Leipz., 1877. ^ 

'Brugsch. EExode et les Monuments Egyptiens. Leipz., 1875. 
Brugsch. " Pithom u. Ramses." Deutsche Revue. Marz, 1884. 
Briill. Das Samar. Targiim zum Pentateuch. Frankf., 1873-75. 
Bruns. " Sagen von d. Entstehung d. Menschengeschlechts." 

Neues Repertorium f. Bibl. u. Morg. Lit. Th. 2, p. 197. 
Bruston. Les Itiscriptions Assyr. ct VAncien Test. Paris, 1873. 



Literature of the Pentateuch. /^.ly 

Bruston. Histoire Critique de la Lit. Prophetiqiie. Paris, 1881. 
Bruston. " Les deux J^hovistes." Rev. de Thiol et de Philos. 

Janv., 1885. 
Bruston. " Le Document Elohiste et son Antiquite." Revue 

Thhlogiqiie (de Montauban), 1882, p. 13, 97. 
Bruston. " Les quatre Sources des Lois de TExode." Rev, de 

Thiol, et de Philos. JuilL, 1883. 
Bryant. The Plagues ijiflicted upon the Egyptians. 2d ed., Lond., 

1810. 
Budde. Die Biblische Urgeschichte. Giessen, 1883. 
Budde. " Seth u. die Sethiten. Eine Berichtigung." Zeitschrift 

f. Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1884, p. 298. 
Budde. " Genesis 48, 7 u. die benachbarten Abschnitte." Ibid., 

1883, p. 56. 
Buddeus. Historia Ecclesiastica V. T. Halle, 171 5 ff. 
Buddeus. Introductio ad PJiilosophiam Ebraeorum- Halle, 

1702, 1720. 
Buddensieg. " Ueber eine Vormosaische Sintfluthversion." Jahr- 

bucJier f. Dent. Theologie, 1873. 
Budge and Sayce. Babylonian Life and History. Lond. Relig. 

Tract Soc, 1884. 
Biidinger. Egypt. Einwirkungen auf Hebrdische Culte. Wien, 

1873- 
Buhl. " Wann ist das Fiinfte Buch Mose Abgefasst worden".'' 

Theol. Tidskr. Kjobh., 1878. 
Bunsen. Gott in der Geschichte. Leipz., 1858. 
Bunsen. Egypt's Place in Universal History (trans, by Cotterill 

with addit. by Birch). 5 vols. Lond., 1848-67. 
Bunsen. ^gyptens- Stelle in der Weltgeschichte. Vols, i.-iii. 

Hamb., 1845; ^'O^s. iv., v., Gotha, 1856-57. 
Bunsen. Vollstdndiges Bibeliverk fur die Gemeinde. 9 Bde. 

Leipz., 1858-70. 
Burder. The Scripture Coni7nentary. Lond., 1809. 
Burger. Der Talmud u. d. Perfectibilitdt des Mosaismus v. Stand- 

punkte d. Reform beleuchtet. Pesth, 1849. 
Bush, C. Notes on Genesis. 26th ed., 2 vols. . New York, 1859. 
Bush, C. "' ~ ' ' - - - - 

Bush, C. 
Bush, C. 
Bush, C. 

Bush, R. W. Popular Introd. to the Pentateuch. Lond., 1883. 
Buttmann. Mythos der S'undflidh. 2te Aufl. Berlin, 18 19. 
Buxtorf. De Pontifice Maximo Hebraeorujn. Basel, 1685. 
Bynaeus. De Calceis Hebraeoruin. Lib. duo. Dort, 1694. 
Cabell. Testimony of Mod. Science to Unity of Mankind. 2d ed. 

Boston, 1859. 
Cajetan. Comment, in Pentatettchum, etc. Paris, 1539, 1543. 
Calmet^ Dissert at tones qui pe^ivent servir de Proligomenes d 

VEcriture Sai?ite. Paris, 1720. 
Calov. Criticus Sacer. Biblicus de Sacrae Scripturae Auctoritate. 
1643 ff. 



Notes on 


Genesis. 


26th ed 


., 2 vols 


. . New York. 


Notes on 


Exodus. 


2 vols. 


Ibid., : 


1856. 


Notes on 


Leviticus. 


Ibid., 


1857. 




Notes on 


Numbers. 


Ibid., 


1863. 




Notes on 


Joshua. 


2d. ed. 


Ibid., 


1862. 



4 1 8 The Pentateuch : Its Origin aiid Structure. 

Calvin. Com. on Joshua. Lond., 1578. 

Calvin. In Qtdnqtie Libros Mosis Coin. Lond., 1595. 

Calvin. In Libruin Geneseos Com. Ed. bv Hengstenberg. Berlin, 

1838. 
Calvin. Book of Moses called Genesis. Trans, by King. Edinb., 

1847-50. 
Candlish. Authority of Scripture Independent of Criticism. 

Edinb., 1877. 
Candlish. Co7itrib. to Exposition of Book of Genesis. 2 vols. 

Edinb., 1853. 
Cardall. Israel's Journeyings in the Wildei-ness. Lond., 1848. 
Carls tadt. De Scripturis Canonicis Libelhis. Wittenberg, 1521. 
Carpenter. " Deuteronomy." Modern Rev., April, 1883. 
Carpenter. " The Book of Judges." Modern Rev., July, 1883. 
Carpenter. " Through the Prophets to the Law." Modern Rev., 

Jan., 1884. 
Carpzov. Introductio ad Libras Canon icos Bibliorufn V. T. Omnes. 

Leipz., 1714-21 fF. 
Carpzov. Critica Sacra V. T. Leipz., 1728, 1748. 
Carrau. DOrigine des Cultes Primitifs. Rev. des Deux Mondes, 

Avril, 1876. 
Carriere. " I3egriff, Ursprung, u. Entwickelung d. Mythus." 

Zeitsch . f. Philos . i . , 1862. 
Carriere. Les Origines du Texte MasorSthigue de V And en Testa- 
ment. Examen Critique d'une R^cente Hypoth^se par A. 

Kuenen. Paris, 1875. 
Cartwright. Anjiotatiojies in Genesin. Lond., 1648. 
Cary. " The Bible and Criticism." Uiiit. Rev. xvi. 425. 
Caspari. " Gesch. Sabbathsjahre." Stud. n. Kritiken. i. 1877. 
Castalio. Books of Mos. ijt Latin Prose, with Notes. 1546. 
Castell. Animadv. in Pentat. Samariticum. Lond., 1660. 
Cave. "Evolution and the Hebrews." Ev. Review., ]:A.n., 1881. 
Cave. Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice. Edinb., 1877. 
Cellarius. Excerpta Pentat. Samar. Vers. Cicm Lat. Interpret., 

etc. Jena, 1705. 
Cecil. Element. Relig. Tritths from the live Books of Moses. 

Lond., 1881. 
Cell^rier. Esprit de la Legist. Mosdique. Paris et Geneve, 1837. 
Cell^rier. Introd. d la Lecture des Livres Saints. Geneve, 1832. 
Cell^rier. DeVOrigine Authentique et Divine de VAncien Testa- 
ment. Geneve et Paris, 1826. 
Ceriani, Translatio Syra Pescitto Vet. Test, ex Codice Ambrosiano. 

Sec. fere vi. Milan, 1876 ff. 
Ceriani. Monumenta Sacra et Profana (vol. ii. Milan, 1868, 

pp. 1-344, contains a fragment of Genesis and Ex. i.-xxxiii. 2, 

according to the text of two mss. of the British Museum). 
Chaie. Handb. d. Israelii. Ritualgesetze. Konigsb., 1847. 
Challis. Creation in Plan and in Progress. Lond., 186 1. 
Chambers. "The Theory of Professor Kuenen." Prcsbyt. Rev., 

1880, p. 304. 



Liter atiirc of the PentateiicJi. 419 

Chambnin de Rosemont. Essai d'lcn Commentaire Scientifique de 

la Genhe. Paris, 1883. 
Chandler. Vindication of the History of the Old Testament. 

Lond., 1 741. 
Chambedain. Plain Reply to Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
Chareney. " Fragments sur la Symbolique H^braique." Rev. de 

Linguistiqiie. Avril, 1869. 
Charleville. " Les Sections du Pentateuque, etc." Rev. des 

Etudes fnives. 
Chester. "Notes on the Topography of the Exodus." Pal. 

Explor. Fund Quarterly, 1880, p. 231 ; 1881, p. 104. 
Cheyne. " Recent Advances in Bib. Criticism.'" Old Test. Stu- 
dent, Oct., 1884 (reprinted from Gtcardian). 
Clant. Dissert, de Labro Tabernaadi, etc. Groningen, 1733. 
Clark. Israel in Egypt. New York, 1874. 
Clark. FundamentaJ Questiojis (on Genesis, etc.). New York, 

1882. 
Clarke. Te7t Great Religions. Part 2, Boston, 1883. 
Clarkson. Antedil. and Patriarchal Researches. Lond., 1836. 
Clayton. Vindicat. of Histories of O. and N. Tests. Lond., 175 1. 
Clemens. Dissert alio de Labro Aeneo a Mose in Tabernacidi Atrio 

Collocato. Groningen, 1732. 
Clement (d. 1793). S^ir V Origine de Pent . d. Samaritans. 
Cock. (Lat. Cocceius.) Considerationes ad tdtima Mosis . Frankf.. 

1650. 
Cockburn. Credibil. of Jewish Exodus Defended. 1809. 
Codex Alexandrimis (a facsimile executed for the Brit. Museum). 

4 vols. Lond., 1879-84. 
Cohen. Historisch-kritische Darstellung d. fudischen Gottes- 

dienstes, etc. Leipz., 18 19. 
Coke. Creeds of the Day. Vol. i. The Old Test. Lond., 1883. 
Colin. Lehrb. d. Vorchristlichen Religionsgeschichte . Lemgo, 

1853- 
Coleridge. Misc. Dissertations on Chaps, xvii., xviii. of Judges. 

Lond., 1768. 
Colenso. Wellhausen on Co7npos. of Hexateuch. Lond., 1878. 
Colenso. Lectures on the Petitateuch and the Moabite Stone. 

Lond., 1873. 
Colenso. The New Bible Com. Examined. Lond., 1871. 
Colenso. The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. 6 vols. Lond., 

1862-79. 
" Colenso on Joshua." Boston Rev., iii. 190. 
Colenso, Rationalism in Works of . Lond., 1863. 
Colenso on the Horns of a Dilemma. Lond., 1863. 
Colet. Mos. Account of Creation. Ed. by Lupton. Lond., 1876. 
Commentary Wholly Biblical, The. 3 vols. Lond. and New 

York, 1868. 
Commentary , The Pulpit. Edited by Spence and Exell. Genesis. 

Introductions by Farrar, Cotterill, Whitelaw ; Expos, and 

Homiletics by Whitelaw. Exodus. Expos, and Homilet. by 



420 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

George Rawlinson. Leviticus. Introd. by Collins and Cave ; 
Expos., etc., by Meyrick. Numbers. Introd. by Whitelaw; 
Expos., etc., Winterbotham. Deuteronomy. Expos, by 
Alexander; Horn, by Clemance. Lond. and New York. 

Commentary, An Old Test. Edited by Ellicott. Genesis, R. 
Payne Smith. Exodus, George Rawlinson. Leviticus, Gins- 
burg. Numbers, Elliott. Deuteronomy, Walker. Lond. and 
New York. 

Commentary, The Bible. Edited by Cook. Introd. to Pentateuch, 
Browne. Genesis, " Bishop of Ely." Exodus, Cook and 
Clark. Leviticus, Clark. Numbers. Introd. by Espin ; Com. 
by Espin and Thrupp. Deuteronomy, Espin. Lond. and 
New York, 1872 ff. 

Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and 
Homiletical. A Trans, of Lange's Bibelwerk with enlarge- 
ments under the editorial supervision of Philip SchafF (New 
York, 1867-82). T'Wq, Book of Genesis V72is trans, and ed. by 
Tayler Lewis and A. Gosman ; Exodus, by Mead; Leviticus, 
by Gardiner with an Introd. by Osgood ; Numbers, by Lowrie 
and Gosman ; Deuteronomy, by Gosman. 

Conant. Genesis with Notes. New York, 1868. 

Conant. " History and Methods of Modern Bib. Crit." Proceed- 
ings of Second An. Baptist Conference, Boston, 1883. 

Conder, C. R. Handbook to the Bible. London and New York. 

Conder, E. R. Origin of the Hebrew Religion. Lond. Relig. 
Tract Soc. 

Conrad i. Tabernaculi Structura et Figura. Hanau, 1621. 

"Contribution to the Criticism of Gen." Am. Lsraelite, Nov. 7, 
1884. 

Cook. Origins of Religion and Language . Lond., 1884. 

Cooper. A?t Archaic Dictionary ; Biographical, Historical, and 
Mythological, from the Egypt., Assyr., and Etruscan Monu- 
ments and Papyri. Lond., 1876. 

Cooper. The Pentateuch and Egypt. Lond., 1875. 

Corrodi. Briefe einiger HoUandischer Gottesgelehrten ueber Simon'' s 
Kritische Geschichte d. Alt. Test, herausg. v. Le Clerc, Uebers. 
mit Anmerkungen tt. Zusdtzen. 2 Bde. 1799- 

Corrodi. Versuch einer Beleuchtung d. Geschichte d. Jildischen 
Bibelkanons. Halle, 1792. 

Corrodi. Beitrage zur Befdrderung des vernunft. Denkens (Heft 
iv. p. 104 ff. treats of the documents of the Pentateuch). 
Winterthur, 1780, 1801. 

Cosquin. " Les Monuments Assyriens et la Bible." Questions 
Controversees de VHistoire. 2e S^rie. 1881. 

Cotterill. Does Science aid Faith in regard to Creation ? New 
York, 1884. 

Cowles. The Pentateuch in its Progressive Revelations of God to 
Men. New York, 1874. 

Cowles. Hebrew History. Lbid., 1875. 

Cox. "Adam's Gospel" (Gen. iii. 14 f.). Expositor, ]^n., 1884. 



Literature of the Pe7itateuch. 421 

Cozza. Bibliorian Sacrortmi Groecus Codex Vaticanus . . . Collatis 

Studiis C. Vercelloni et Jos. Cozza. Rome, 1869-81. 
Crafts. Must the Old Test. Go ? New York, 1883. 
Cramer. De Molocho. Wittenb., 1720. 
Crawford. Patriarchal Dynasties fro7ti Adam to Abraham. 

Richmond, 1877. 
Craven. Biblical Chronology. 2d ed. Boston, 1876. 
" Credibility of Pentateuch." Christian Observer, Ixiv. 517. 
Credner. Beitrdge z. Einleit. in d. Bibl. Schriften. Halle, 1832. 
Creuzer. " Beitrage zur Jiidischen Geschichte." Stud. u. Kriti- 

ken, 1850, 1853. 
Critici Sacri. 9 vols. Lond., 1660; Amst., 1698; Frankf., 1696. 
"Crito." The Song of Moses , ^Xq.. Lond., 1782. 
Crosby. Expos. Notes on Joshua. New York, 1875. 
Crosby. " The Authorship of the Pentateuch." The Independent, 

Feb. I, 1883. 
Cross. Hints to Eng. Readers of the Old Test. Lond., 1882. 
Crosskey. " Recent Defences of the Mosaic Cosmogony." Modern 

Rev., Oct., 1883, p. 675. 
Cumming. Moses Right and Bp. Colenso Wrong. Lend., 1863. 
Cunaeus. De Republica Hebraeoriun. Ley den, 161 7. 
Currey. Hist . of Is . as preparing for the Gospel. Hulsean Lect. 

Camb., 1851-52. 
Curtiss. " Present State of O. Test. Studies." Current Discus- 

siojis in Theology, Chicago, 1883. 
Curtiss. " History of Israel." Ibid.,\^Z\. 
Curtiss. " Papers on the Lang, and Lit. of Israel." The Advance, 

1883, Jan. and Feb. 
Curtiss. "Sketches of Pentateuch Criticism." Bibliotheca Sac, 

Jan. and Oct., 1884. 
Curtiss. De Aaronitici Sacerdotii atque Thoroe Elohisticae Origine. 

Leipz., 1878. 
Curtiss. " Delitzsch on the Origin and Composition of the Penta- 
teuch." Presbyt. Rev., July, 1882. 
Curtiss. The Levitical Priests . Edinb., 1877. 
Cyril (of Alex.). Cojnyn. in Pent., Greece et Latine. Antw., 1618. 
Da Costa. Israel u. die V'olker. Frankf., 1855. 
Dahler. De Librorum Paraleipom. Auctoritate. Strasb., 18 19. 
Dale. De Oj-igine et Progressu Idololatrioe. 1696. 
Danglar. Les Semites et le Shnitisine. Paris, 1882. 
Danz . De Festo Jud. Septinianarmn , etc. Jena, 1715-18. 
Darmsteter. Die Philosophie d. Gesch. d. Jiidischen Volkes. 

Wien, 1884. 
Darwin. Descent of Man. New ed. Lond., 1880. 
Dassov. Scholia Criticorum i7t Levit. Kiel, 1707. 
Dassov. Dissert, de Suspendio Hominis Lapidibus Obruti. 

Wittenb., 1694. 
Datema. De Dekaloog. Utrecht, 1876. 

Dathe. Pentateuchus ex Recensione Textus Hebrcei. Leipz., 1791. 
Dathe. Libri Historici V. T. Halle, 1784. 



422 The Peittateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

Daumer. Entwendung d. ALgyp. Eigenthums. Niirnb., 1833. 
Daumer. Der Feuer-und Moloch-dienst der Alten Hebrder. 

Braunschv»^eig, 1842. 
Davidson, J. The Pejitateuch and Hebrews. Edinb., 1877. 
Davidson, P. Pentateuch Vindicated. Lond., 1863. 
Davidson, S. A Treatise on Bib. Criticism. Lond., 1855. 
Davidson, S. hitrod. to the Old Test. 3 vols. Lond., 1862-63 
Davison. Primitive Sacrifice. Ait Inqitiry . Lond., 1825. 
Dawson. Origin of the World. New York (without date). 
Dawson. Story of the Earth and Man. New York (without date) . 
Dawson. The Dawn of Life. Lond., 1875. 
JJawson. Fossil Men and their Modern Representatives . Lond., 

1880. 
Dawson. Nature ajid the Bible. New York, 1875. 
Dawson. " Antiq. of Man and Origin of Species.'' Princeton 

Rev., Nov., 1880. 
Dawson. Studies of the Cosmogony , etc., of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Montreal and Lond., i860. 
Day. The Five Books of Moses. Lond., 1549. 
Deane. " The Septuagint Additions to the Heb. Text." Expositor ^ 

Aug., Sept., 1884. 
De Broglie. " L'Origine de la Religion." Coiitemporain, Juin, 

1883. 
De Brossis. Du Cultu de Dieux fetiches . Paris, 1760. 
DeGeer. Dissei''tatio Inauguralis de Bileai7io. Leyden, 18 16. 
Deicke. Ueber d. Simdfluth. Vortrag. Gallen, 1861. 
DeLavaur. Confer, de la Fable avec PHist. Sainte. Paris, 1730. 
Delbriick. " Veidialtniss zwischen Relig. u. Mythologie. Zeitsch. 

f. Volkerpsychol., 1865, p. 487. 
Delff. Grundzilge der Eittwickelungsgesch. d. Religion. Leipz., 

1883. 
Delitzsch, Franz. " Die neue Mode d. Herleitung des Gottesna- 

mens [Jehovah]." Zeitsch. f. Liither. Theologie, 1877, iv. 
Delitzsch, Franz. "Der Esra d. Ueberlieferung u. d. Esra d. 

neuesten Pentateuchkritik." Zeitsch. f. Luther. Theologie, etc., 

1&77, p. 445. 
Delitzsch, Franz. " Ueber den Jahve-Namen." Zeitsch. f Alttest. 

Wissenchaft, 1883 (2) ; 1884 (i). 
Delitzsch, Franz. " Priester Segen." Zeitsch. f. Kirch. Wiss.ii. 

Kirchliches Leben , 1882, p. 113. 
Delitzsch, Franz. Coin, i'lber d. Genesis. 4te Aufl. Leipz., 1882. 
Delitzsch, Franz. " Pentateuch-kritische Studien." Zeitsch f 

Kirch. Wiss. u. Kirchliches Leben, 1880. This series of 

articles continued through the year, and under the title " Urmo- 

saisches " into the year 1881. 
Delitzsch, Franz. Com. ziun Hebrderbricf (illustrating Mos. 

system of sacrifices). Leipz., 1857. 
Delitzsch, Franz. Bibl. Comment ar fiber die Psalmen. 3te Aufl., 

Leipz., 1873; 4te Aufl. (revised), 1884. 
Delitzsch, Franz. See Baer. See also Keil. 



Literature of the Pentateuch. ■ 423 

Delitzsch, Fried. Wo Lag das Paradies? Leipz., 1881. 

Delrius. Glossae in Genesin. Leyden, 1608. 

Denison. Antiquity of Man . Lond . , 1 865 . 

Denio. " Present Outlook of Old Test. Study." New Englatider^ 

1883, p. 643- 
Derenbourg. "Encore C[uelques Mots sur les Sections du Penta- 

teuque.'' Rev. des Etudes, Juin, Sept., 1883. 
De Rossi. Scholia Critica in Vet, Test. Libros (supplement to the 

work entitled Variae Lectio nes, Qic). Parma, 1798. 
De Rothschild. Hist, afid Lit. of the Israelites. Lond., 187 1. 
Der Ursprungliche Entwickelungsgang d. Religi'dsen u. Sittlichen 

Bildung der Welt (anonymous). Greifswald, 1829. 
De Saporta. "Prehistoric Archaeology.'" Pop. Scientific Mo7ithly^ 

Sept. and Oct., 1883. 
De Smedt. Principles de la Critique Historiqiie. Liege: Soc. Bibl. 

Beige, 1883. 
Deuteronojny, Notes on. Vol. IL Lond., 1882. 
" Deuteronomy as the Production of Moses." Jour, of Sac. Lit., 

XX. 313. 
" Deuteronomy, the Book and its Critics." Church Quart. Review, 

Oct., 1877. 
De Wette. Vorles. uber die Religion ihr Wesen, etc. Berlin, 1827. 
De Wette, Die Heilige Schrift d. A. n. N. Tests. Uebersetzt. 2te 

Aufl. Heidelb., 1831, 1832. 
De Wette. Lehrb. d. HistoriscJi-KritischenEinleitung in d. Kanon. 

u. Apok. Bilcher d. Alt. Test. 8te Aufl., neu bearbeitet von 

Schrader. Berlin, 1869. 
De Wette. Review of Vatke's Religion d. A. T. George's D. aelt. 

Ji'tdis. Teste and y. Bohlen's Genesis. Stud. u. Kritikefi, 1837. 
De Wette. LOrigine Authentique et Divine de VAncien Testament . 

Geneve et Paris, 1826. 
De Wette. Dissertatio Critico-exegetica qua Deuterononiiuni a 

Prioribus Pentateuchi Libris Diversion alius Cujusdani Re- 

centioris Auctoris Opus esse Denionstratur. Jenae, 1805. 
De Wette. Lehrb. d. Hebr'd. Jildischen Archaologie. 4te Aufl. 

(Rabiger). Leipz., 1864. 
Die Chronologie der Genesis ( i Mosis) ini Einklang mit der Pro- 

fanen (anonymous). Regensburg, 1881. 
Diederichs. Zur Geschichte Siifisons . Getting., 1778. 
Diemer. Gen. u. Ex. n. d. Milstater Handschrift. Wien, 1862. 
Diestel. Einfluss d. Aegypt. Cidtur auf. Is. z. Zeit Mosis. 

Vortrag. Elberfeld, 1861. 
Diestel. "Der Monotheismus des alteren Heidenthums vorziig- 

lich bei den Semiten." Jahrb. f. Deut. Theologie, i860. 
Diestel. Die Sihidfluth u. die Fluthsagen d. Alterthujns . Berlin, 

1872. 
Diestel. Der Segen Jacobs, Gen. xlix. Braunschweig, 1853. 
Diestel. " Stiftshiitte." SchenkePs ^/(i^-^Z-Z^.r. 
Diestel. " Die Religiosen Delicte im Israelit. Strafrecht." Jahrbti- 

cher f. Prot. Theologie, 1879, ii. 



424 The PentatcucJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

Dillmann, Urspr.d. Alltest. Religion. Acad. Rede. Giessen, 1865. 
Dillmann . Die Bucher Exodus imd Levitic7is {Kiirzgefasstes Exeget. 

Handb.). Leipz., 1880. 
Dillmann. Die Genesis (ibid.^. 4te Aufl. Leipz., 1882. 
Dillmann. Biblia V. T. JEthiop. Bd. i., Octateuchus. Leipz., 

1853-55- 
Dillmann. " Ueber d. Kalenderswesen d. Israeliten vor dem 

Babylon. Exil." Monatsch. d. K'onig. Acad. d. Wiss. zzi Berlin., 

Oct. 27, 1881. 
Dillmann. "Ueber die Herkunft d. Urgeschichtlichen Sagen d. 

Hebraer." Sitzimgsbericht d. K. Acad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin., 

April 27, 1882. 
Dillmann. " Ueber Baal mit dem Weiblichen Artikel." Ibid., 

June 16, 1881. 
Dillmann. " Bibeltext des Alten Testaments." Yioxzo^ s Eitcyk., 

2te Aufl., ii. p. 381. 
Dillmann. " Bildung der Sammlung heiliger Schriften Alten 

Testaments." Jahrb.f.Deut.Theol. (1858), p. 419. 
Dimock. Notes on Gen., Ex., etc. Gloucester (Eng.), 1804. 
Disraeli. Ge?tius of Judaism. Lond., 1833. 
Ditmar. Geschichte d. Israeliten (till Cyrus). Berlin, 1788. 
Dittmar. Geschichte der Welt 7nit Ruclzsicht auf die Entwickelung 

des lebens in Religion, etc. 4 Bde. Heidelb., 1847-51. 
Dods. IsraeVs Iron Age. 4th ed. Lond., 1880. 
Dods. The BooJi of Genesis. Edinb., 1882. 

Donnelly. Atlantis: the Antediluvian World. New York, 1882. 
Doorninck. Bijdrage tot de Textkritiek von Richterejt i.-xvi. 

Leyden, 1879. 
Douglass. The Book of Joshua. Lond., 1882. 
Dozy. Die Israeliten zu Mekka v. David'' s Zeit. Haarl., 1864. 
Drechsler. Einleit u. Echtheit d. Ge7iesis. Hamb., 1838. 
Drechsler. Die Unwissenschaftlichtzeit ini Gebiete d. Alttest. 

Kritik (directed against Vatke and V. Bohlen). Leipz., 1837. 
Drew. Colenso'^s Exam, of Pent. Exa77ii7ted. Lond., 1863. 
Drexellius. Noe Arcliitectus Arcae. Munich, 1644. 
Driver. " On some Alleged Linguistic AiBnities of the Elohist." 

Journal of Philol., xi. p. 201. 
Droysen. Grundriss der HistoriJz. Leipz., 1868. 
Drusius. Ad Loca Difficiliora Josuae, Judic, et Sa77i. Co7;i- 

77ie7itarius. Franeq., 1618. 
Duff. "Structure of O. Test. Books." Bibliotheca Sac, Oct., 

1880, July, 1882. 
Duffield. " Evolutionism respecting Man and the Bible." Princeton 

Rev., Jan., 1878. 
Duke. Questio7i of Incest by Marriage with Sisters in Snccessiofi. 

Lond., 1882. 
Duncan. Law of Moses : its Char. a7id Design. Lond., 1851. 
Duncker. Geschichte des Alterthu77ts. 5te Aufl. Leipz., 1878. 
Duncker. History of A7itiquity. 6 vols. Lond., 1877-82. 
Dunlop. " The Man Moses." A/n. Church Rev., ]v\'j, \'^'$>y 



Literature of the Pentateuch. 425 

Dunner. " Beleuchtung einiger Stellen in Exodus iii." Monat- 
schrift f. Gesch. u. Wiss. d. yiidenthicjyis , 1870, pp. 97, 145, 

193- 
Duns. " The Serpent of Eden." Bibliotheca Sac, xxi. p. 163. 
Du Pin. Prolegojumes siir la Bible. Paris, 170 1. 
Dupuis. Origiiie de tons Ics Cidtes. 12 vols. Paris, 1796. 
Durell. The Heb. Text on the Parallel Proph. of Jacob and Moses 

Relatijig to the Tweh'e Tribes. Oxford, 1763. 
Dushak. Gesch. n. Darstellnng d. Jud. Ciiltns. Mannheim, 

1866. 
Dushak. Das Mosaisch-Talmudische Strafrecht. Wien, 1869. 
Dwight. TJie Hebreiu Wife (treats of marriage with a deceased 

wife's sister). Lond., 1836. 
Dwinell. "The Prophets of Israel," Rev. of W. R. Smith's book 

of that title. Bibliotheca Sac, April, 1884, p. 327. 
Ebers. Djirch Gosen znin Sinai. 2te Aufl. Leipz., 1881. 
Ebert. " Zur Angelsachsischen Genesis." Anglia, v. i. 
Ebrard. " Kritik." Herzog's A'^^/-^;//f>^. iste Aufl. 
Ebrard. Anfdnge d. MenscJiengeschlechts. Frankfurt, 1876. 
Eckard. Ueber die Mosdische Religion, ^\£.. Greifswald, 1787. 
Eckermann. Lchrb. d. Religions-i^eschichte u. Mythologie. 2 Bde. 

Halle, 1854 f. 
Eckstein. " D. Sitz d. Cultur in der Urwelt." Zeitsch.f. V'olker- 

psychol., etc., i860, p. 261. 
Edersheim. Prophecy and Hist, in Relation to the Messiah. 

Lond., 1885. 
Edersheim. The Exodns and the Wanderings in the Wilderness . 

Lond. Relig. Tract. Soc. 
Edersheim . World before the Flood and Hist, of Patriarchs . Ibid. 
Edersheim. The Laws and Polity of the Jews. Ibid. 
Edwards. "Certain Erroneous IVIethods and Principles in Bib. 

Criticism." Bibliotheca Sac, vi. p. 185. 
Edwards. "Authenticity and Genuineness of the Pentateuch." 

Ibid., ii. 356, 658. 
Egli. " Zur Textkritik von Gen. xx." Zeit schrift f. Jf7ss. Theo- 

logie, 1880, p. 344. 
Egli. " Pentateuchisches." /($/<^., 1881, p. 205. 
Ehrt. Abfassimgszeit u. Abschlnss d. Psalters, etc. Leipz., 1870. 
Eichhorn. Einleit2mgi7id. Alt e Test. 4teAufl. Getting., 1823-24. 
Eichhorn. WeltgeschicJite. 5 vols. 1801-1814. 
Eichhorn. Repertoriiim fur Bib. n. Morgenld?id. Liter atnr. 10 

Bde. Leipz., 1787-1801. 
Eichhorn. " Urgeschichte." Repertorinin,\\., v. (1779). 
Einhorn. PrincTp des Mosaismns. Leipz., 1854. 
Elliot. Moses and Moder^i Science. Lond. , 1 87 1 . 
Elliott. "Unity of the Pentateuch." Heb. Student, ]v\ne, 1883. 
Elliott. Vindication of the Mos. Authorship of PoUateuch. 

Cincinnati, 1884. 
Encyclopcedia Britannica. Has valuable articles on the O. Test. 

Books and the Criticism of the O. T. 



426 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Engel. Losiing d. Par adiesf rage. Leipz., 1885. 

Engelhardt. " Ein Beitrag zurFrage liber die Cherubim.'" Zeitsch. 

f. Luther. Theotogie, etc. 1861. 
Engelhardt. " Die Idee dcr Stiftshiitte." Idem, 1868. 
Engelstoft. Historia Populi Jiidaici Biblica usque Occupationem 

Palcestinae. Copenhag., 1832. 
Erdmann. NaUir tc. ScJwppmg. Leipz., 1840. 
Ernesti. '* On conforming to the Laws of Criticism in the Study of 

Divinity." Opusada Oratoria, 3. Leyden, 1762. 
Erpenius. Pentateiichus Mosis, Arabice. Leyden, 1622. 
Essays aiid Reviews. Eds. 1-9. Lond., 1861. 
Esteoule. Essai sur PAutorite de f'Ancien Test. Paris, 186 1. 
Etheridge. Tar gums of Onketos and Jonathan. Lond., 1862-65. 
Etheridge. Introductioji to Heb. Literature. Lond., 1856. 
Ewald. De Feriarum Hebraeariun Or. et Ratione. Getting., 1841. 
Ewald. Die Altherthumer d. VolJces Israet. Getting., 1866. 
Ewald. Jahrbucher d. Bib. Wissenschaft. Gotting., 1849-65. 
Ewald. Geschichted. Vot/ces Israet. 3te Ausg. Getting,, 1864-68. 
Ewald. The History of Israel. 4 vols. Lond., 187 1. 
Ewald. Die Propheten d. Alien Bundes erJzl'drt. 2teAufl. 3 Bde. 

Getting., 1867-68. 
Ewald. Dichter d. Alien Bundes. 3te Ausg. 3 Bde. 1866-67. 
Ewald. Die Compositio7i d. Geiiesis Jcritisch untersucJit. Braun- 
schweig, 1823. 
Ewald. Reviezv of Sldheli?t's Krit. Untersuchung ilber die Genesis. 

Stud. zi. KritiJcen, 1831, iii. 
Ewald. " Neue Untersuchungen liber den Gott der Erzvater." 

Jahrb'iicher d. Bibt. Wissenschaft, 1859-60, x. p. i. 
Ewald. " Ueber die Volks-und Geistesfreiheit Israel's zur Zeit der 

grossen Propheten bis zur ersten Zerstorung Jerusalems." 

Ibid., 1848, i. p. 95. 
Ewald. "Ueber die Wendung aller Geschichte Israel's in ihrer 

hehen Mitte." Ibid., 1859-60, x. p. 29. 
Ewald. " Das grosse Lied im Deuteronomium xxx." Ibid., 1856, 

viii. p. 41. 
Ewald. "Die Weissagungen Bileam's." Ibid., 1856, viii. p. i. 
Ewald. " Erklarung der Biblischen Urgeschichte. Ibid, (in 

various numbers) , 1848-58. 
Ewald. " Ueber das suchen und finden sogenannter Makkabaischer 

Psalmen." Ibid., 1853-54, vi. p. 20. 
Examen Critique de I Ancien Test.: Le Pentateuque. Paris, 1882. 
Exell. Homiletical Connneidary on Genesis. Lend., 1875. 
Faber. Horae Mosaicae. 2 vols. Oxford, 180 1. 
Faber. Arch'dol. dcr IIeb7'aer. (Onlyparti. appeared.) Plalle, 1773. 
Fabri. Entste/unig d. Heidcnthums. Barmen, 1859. 
Fabricius (d. 1654). Disputatt. in Genesim, etc. 
Fabricy. Des Titres Primitifs de la Revelation. Rome, 1772. 
Fagius. Versio ad Targ. Onlzetos cutn Notis. Argent., 1546. 
Fairbairn. The Revelation of Law in Scripture. Edinb., 1868. 
Fairbairn. TJie Typology of Scripture. Edinb., 1876. 



Lite7'ature of the Pentateuch. 427 

Fairbairn. Imperial Bible Dictionary. Edinb., 1865. 
Fairholme, Mosaic Dehige. Lond., 1840. 
Farrer. Pritnitive Ma7mers and Ctistonis. Lond., 1876. 
Fassel. D. Mos. RabbiniscJie CivilrecJit. Gr. Kanisha, 1854. 
Fausset. The EnglisJDnan^ s Crit. ajid Expository Bible Encyclo- 

pcedia. Lond. and New York, 188 1. See also Jamieson. 
Favez. Le D enter 07ioine. Lausanne, 1874. 

Fayus. Defensio Relig. nee non Mosis et Gentis Jud. Ultraj., 1709. 
Feldhoff. Die Zeitenlinie d. Heil. Schrift. Frankf., 1831. 
Feldhoff. Die Volkertafel der Genesis. Elberfekl, 1837. 
Fenton. Early Hebrew Life. Lond., 1880. 

Fenton. " Prim. Heb. Land Tenure."" TJieol. Review, Oct., 1877. 
Fenton. " The Goel." TJieol. Review, OQX.,\Z^Z. 
Fergus. Laws and Institntions of Moses. 181 1. 
Ferguson, H. " Historical Testimony of the Prophet Zephaniah." 

Joicr. of Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, Jan. -June, 1884. 
Ferguson, R. Sacrifice in Relatio7i to God and Man. Lond., 

1856. 
Ferriere. Le Faganisme des Hebreux jitsqif a la Captivite de 

Baby lone. Paris, 1884. 
Fichte. Versnch e. Kritik alter Off eiibarung. Konigsb., 1793. 
Field, F. Origenis Hexaploruin quae supersntd. Oxford, 1875. 
Field, H . M . " Humane Features of the Mosaic Law. " Bibliotheca 

Sac.y X. p. 340. 
Filachou. Co}nnientaire PJiilosopJiiqiie du Premier CJiapitre de la 

Genhe. Paris, 1882. 
Fink. Gesc/i. 2c. IVesenJieit d. Religionen. Leipz., 1844. 
Fischer. Heidenl/inm n. Offenbarimg. Mainz, 1878. 
Fischer. UrgesctiicJdt d. JMenscJiemi. die Bibel. Wurzburg, 1878. 
Fleming. Fallen Angels and Heroes of MytJtology . Lond., 1880. 
Fleming. Ttie Gospel in Leviticns. Lond., 1880. 
Fleury. Moers des Israelites. Bruxelles, 1701. 
Flockner. Z. AutJientie u. Integretdt d. Moseliedes. Beuthen, 

1876. 
Floigl. Gesch. d. Semit. Altertinns in Tabellen. Leipz., 1882. 
Fluegel. Die Mosdisctie Dilit UTid Hygiejie. Kalamazoo, 1881. 
Formby. Monotheism derived from the Hebrew Nation and the 

Law of Moses, the Primitive Relig. of tJie City of Rome. 

Lond., 1877. 
Fowle. " The Place of Revelation in Ev'olution."" NineteentJi 

Cod., Sept., 1 88 1. 
Fowler, C. H. Fallacies of Colenso Reviewed. Cincinnati, 1865. 
Fowler, F..W. Answer to Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
Frankel. Das Mosaisch-Tahmidische EJierecJit. Breslau, i860. 
Frankel. " Ueber d. Entwickelung der Pentateuch - Perikopen- 

Verlesung."" MonatscJirift f. Gesch. u. Wiss. d. Judenthions, 

1867, p. 385. 
Frankel. " Die Zeit des Konigs Chiskija und der Zeitgenos- 

sischen Propheten. Ibid., 1870, p. 49. 
Freihold. Das Erste Leben d. MenschJieit. Jena, 1876. 



428 The Pc/itatc2ich : Its Origin and Structure. 

Freund u. Marx. Prdperation zum Alt en Testament. The 

Pentateuch appeared, Leipz., 1863. 
Frey. Hist, ab Orbe Condito ad Mosis Morteni. Basel, 1583. 
Friederich. Symbolik d. Mosaichcji Stiftshutte. Leipz., 1841. 
Friedhoff. Status Primi Hominis Supernaturalis et Indebitus. 

Theissing, 1850. 
Friedlander. Geschichte d. Is. Volkes. Leipz., 1848. 
Friedreich. Ueber die Jud. Beschneidung. Ausbach, 1844. 
Friedrich. Der Segen Jacobs. Breslau, 1811. 
Fries. " Die Lage von Kades." Stnd. tt. Kritiken, 1854, p. 50. 
Fries. " Z. Kamphausen's Bemerkungen liber die Stiftshutte." 

Stud. u. Kritiken, 1859, i- 
Fritzsche. De Rev elationis Notione Biblica Coin. Leipz., 1828. 
Fritzsche. Prufung der Grunde mit welchen nejierlich die 

Aechtheit d. Bucher Mosis bestritten warden ist. Leipz., 18 14. 
Froschammer. Ueber d. Genesis d. Menschengeschlechts . Miin- 

chen, 1883. 
Fulda. " Ueber das Alter d. Heil. Schriften d. Alten Test." 

Paulus' Neues Repertorinm, lygi, iii. 
Fulda. " Resultate Freimiithiger Untersuchung ueber den Kanon 

d. Alten Testament." Paulus' Memorabilien, 1795. 
Fulton. The Law of Marriage, containing the Heb. Law, etc. 

New York, 1883. 
Fiirst, Der Pentateuch. Illustrirte Volksansgabe. Prag, 1882. 
Fiirst. " Beitrage zur Kritik der Bucher Samuel." Zeitschrift f. 

Wiss. Theologie, 1881, p. 170. 
Fiirst. Hebrdisches u. Chald. Handw'drterbnch. 3te Aufl. bear- 

beitet von Ryssel. Leipz., 1876. 
Fiirst. Geschichte d. Biblischen Literatur. 2 Bde. Leipz., 1867-70. 
Gaab. Beitrdge z. Erkldr. des i, 2, 4 B. Mosis. Tiibing., 1796. 
Gaab. " Explicatio Nova Cap. xxxiii. Deuteronomii." Conimen- 

tat tones Theologicae oi Velthusen, etc. Leipz., 1794-99. 
Gabler. Neiie Versnchung uber die Mos. Sch'dpfnngsgeschichte aiis 

der Hoheren Kritik. NUrnb., 1796. 
Gainet. Accord de la Bible et de la Geologic daiis le Creation de six 

jours. Reims, 1867. 
Gall. Primeval Man. 2d ed. Lond., 1880. 
Galloway. Philos. of the Creation. (Gen. i.-x.) Edinb., 1885. 
Garbett. Divine Plan of Revelation. Boyle Lect. Lond., 1864. 
Garbett. The Bible and its Critics. Boyle Lect. Lond., 1861. 
Gardiner. " Note on Gen. xi. 26." Bibliotheca Sac, Oct., 1877. 
Gardiner. Old and N. Testaments in t/ieir Mutual Relations. 

New York, 1885. 
Gardiner. " Early Narratives in Genesis." Am. Church Rev., xxx. 

361. 
Gardiner. "Darwinism." Bibliotheca Sac, xxix. p. 240. 
Gardiner. " Chronolog. Value of the Genealogy in Gen. v." 

Bibliotheca Sac, xxx. p. 323. 
Gardiner. *' Relation of Ezekiel to the Levitical Law." Journal 

ofSoc. of Bib. Lit. and Exegesis, July-Dec, 1881. 



Literature of the Pentataich. 429 

Garland. Genesis: With Notes, ^iz. Lond., 1878. 

Gartner. Bibelii. Geologie. Stuttg., 1867. 

Gast. " Assyrian Research and the Old Testament." Rcf. Quart. 

Review, 1884, p. 178. 
Gast. "Pentateuch Criticism: its History and Present State." 

Ref. Quart. Review, 1882, pp. 179, 374. 
Gaulmin. De Vita et Morte Mosis. Paris, 1628. 
Gaussen. The Exodus of Israel. Lond., 1869. 
Gaussen. Le Pre?nier Chapitre de la Genhe Expose. 2^ 6dit. 

Toulouse, 1865. 
Gaussen. Froin Egypt to Sinai. Lond., 1869. 
Gautier. " Quelques Opinions Recentes sur ' Jehovah.'" Rev. de 

Thiol, et de Philos., Oct., 1877. 
Geddes. O^itical Remarks on the Hebrew Scriptures . Vol. i. 

(Pentat.). Lond., 1800. 
Geddes. Kritische u. Exeget. Anmerkimgeti u. eine Abhandlung 

ueber Mosis ic. die Verfasser des Pentateuchs. Halle, 1802. 
Geftken. Ueber die Verschiedene Eintheilung des Dekalogzts und 

den Einfluss derselben auf den Cultus. Hamb., 1838. 
Geiger. Urschrift u. Ueber setzung der Bibel. Breslau, 1857. 
Geiger. " Das nach Onkelos benannte Thargum zum Pentateuch." 

J'udische Zeitschrift, 1 871, p. 85. 
Geiger. " Die Lebensjahre d. zwei altesten Geschlechtsreihen." 

Zeitsch.f. Wiss. u. Leben, 1861, pp. 98, 175. 
Geiger. Die Gesetzlichen Differenzen zwischen Samar. u. Juden." 

Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft, xx. p. 527. 
Geiger. " Gen. vi. 3 bei den Samaritanern." Zeitsch. d. Deut. 

Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft, xxviii, p. 489. 
Geiger. Cf. also, ibid. xvi. p. 714 ; xviii. pp. 590, 813 ; xix. p. 610 ; 

XX. pp. 143, 447; xxi. p. 169; xxii.p. 528. 
Geiger. " Der Baal in d. Hebra. Eigennamen." Ibid., xvi. p. 728. 
Geiger. Das Judenthum 21. seine Geschichte. Breslau, 1871. 
Geike. Hours with the Bible. Vols, i., ii. Lond., 188 1. 
Gelbe. Zur Einleitung ins Alte Test. Leipz., 1866. 
Gell. Amend, of Eng. Translation of the Bible. V^.x., Pentateuch. 

Lond., 1659. 
Gellion-Danglar. Les Semites et le Semitisme. Paris, 1882. 
" Genesis and the Commentators." Scottish Rev., Nov., 1882. 
Genesis in Advance of Present Science. A Grit. Examination of 

Chaps, i.-ix. (anonymous). Lond., 1883. 
George. Die Aelteren J'udischen Feste, etc. Berlin, 1835 
Gerard. Institutes of Bib. Criticisin. Boston, 1823. 
Gerdes. De Festo Clangoris. Duisburg, 1730. 
Gerhard, J. Cojn. super Deuterojiomium. Jena, 1567. 
Gerhard, J. Com. super Genesin. Jena, 1693. 
Gerhard, P. " 1st d. Stiftshiitte eine tendenciose Fiction," etc. ? 

Beweis d. Glaubens, Oct., 1879. 
Gerlach. Das Alte Testament mit Einleit. Berlin, 1843. 
Gesenius . De Petttatezichi Sainaritani Origine, Indole et Auctoritate. 

Halle, 1815. 



430 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Gesenius. Hebraisches u. Chal. Handw'drterb, uber d. Alte Test. 

9te Aufl. (Mlihlau u. Volck.) Leipz., 1882-83. 
Gessner. Das Liedd. Deborah ubersetzt u. erkldrt. Quakenbruch, 

1879. 
Gfrorer. Urgesch. des Menschengeschlechts . Schaffhausen, 1885. 
Ghillany. Die Menschenopfer bei alien Hebrder. (Cf. Slud. u. 

Kritiken, 1843, i v.) Niirnb., 1842. 
Ghillany. Das judenlhum 21. die Krilik. Niirnb., 1844. 
Gibbens. Quesliotis on first \/\. Chaps, of Genesis. Lond., 1601. 
Gibson. The Mosaic Era. New York, 1881. 
Gibson. Ages Before Moses. Ibid., 1^7 (). 
Giesebrecht. " Zur Hexateuchkritik." Zeilsch. f. Alllest. Wissen- 

schafl, 1 88 1, f. 177. 
Giesebrecht. " Abfassungszeit der Psalmen,'" /<^/<i., pp. 276-332. 
Gieseler. ' ' Ob Aben-Esra Mosen fiir den Verfasser des Penta- 

teuchs halte.'' Slitd. n. Kriliken, 1829, i. 
Giles. Hebrew a?id Christian Records. Lond., 1877. 
Girdlestone. Genesis: its Authenticity , ^\.z. Lond., 1864. 
Gladstone. " The Iris of Homer and her relation to Genesis ix. 

11-17." Conte7np. Review, h^x\\., 1878. 
Glaire. Introduction historique et critique aux livres de VAncien et 

du Nouveau Testament. 4^ ^dit. 5 vols. Paris, 1868-69. 
Godet. Etudes bibliques. ire s6rie : Ancien Testajnent. 2^ ^dit. 

Neuchatel, 1873. Lond. (in Eng.), 1875-79. 
Godwin. Civil and Eccles. Rites of An. Hebrews. Oxford, 1616. 
Goens. " La M^thode de la Critique d'apr^s A. Kuenen." Revue 

de Theol. et de Philosophic, 1881, p. 164. 
Goldziher. D. Mythus bei den Hebrdern. Leipz., 1876, Lond. 

(in English), 1877. 
Goltz. Gottes Offenbarung durch Heil. Geschichte, nach ihrem 

Wesen betrachtet. Basel, 1868. 
Goodwin, C. W. " On the Mosaic Cosmogony." Recent hiquiries 

in Theology, Boston, 1861. 
Goodwin, H. Gradual Dev el. of Revelation. Lond., 1871. 
Goodwin, H. Essays on the Pentateuch. Lond., 1867. 
Gorres. Die V'dlkertafel d. PentateucJi. Regensb., 1845. 
Graetz. " SegenBileams."" Monatschr. f. Gesch. u.Wiss. d. Jud., 

1884, p. 468. 
Graetz. Geschichte der Juden von den dltesten Zeiten bis auf die 

Gegenwart. 2te Aufl. 11, Bde. Leipz., 1864-70. 
Graetz. "Das Debora-Lied.'" Mo7iatschrift f. Gesch. u. IViss. 

d. Judenthuins, 1881, p. 193; 1882, p. 123. 
Graf. De Teniplo Silonensi, ad ilhistratidum locum Jud., xviii. 

30, 31. Meissener Programm, 1855. 
Graf. " Beitrage zu den Theologischen Wissenschaften von den 

Mitgliedern der Theolog. Gesellschaft zu Strassburg." Heft i. 

Jena, 1847. The ?rt. has reference to Simon's Histoire 

Critique du Vieux Testament. 
Graf. Die Geschich. Bucher d. Alien Testaments. Leipz., 1866. 
Graf. Der Segen Mosis erkldrt. Leipz., 1857. 



Literature of the Pentateuch, 43 1 

Graf. "Was bedeutet d. Ausdruck * vor Gott erscheinen' in d. 

Gesetzen d. Pentat., Ex. xxi. 6; xxii. 7, 8." Zeitsch. d. Dent. 

Morgeiildtid. Gesetlschaft^ xviii. p. 309. 
Graf. Dcr Stanun Si)neo7i. Meissener Programm, 1866. 
Graf. " Zur Geschichte des Stammes Levi." Merx's Archiv, 

1867, pp. 68, 208. See also his reply to Riehm's strictures on 

Die Geschich. B'ucher d. A. T., Stud. 11. Kritikeit, 1868, in 

Merx's Archiv, 1869. 
Graf. " Priester." Schenkel's Bibel-Lex. 
Graham. The Mosaic Cosinogojiy. Lond., 1865. 
Gramberg. Die Chronik nach ihrem Geschichtlichen Character, etc., 

gepruft. Halle, 1823. 
Gramberg. Kritische Geschichte d. Religioiisideeii d. Alien Test. 

Berlin, 1829-30. 
Gramberg. Libri Geneseos secundum Fontes I'ite dignoscendos 

Adunibratio IVova. Leipz., 1828. 
Grandpierre. Essai sur le Pe7itateuque. Paris, 1844. 
Grant. Bible Record of Creation True for every Age. Lond., 

1877. 
Grasshoff. Das Erste B. Mose. Bremen, 1884. 
Graves. Lectures on the Last Four Books of the Pentateuch. 

Dubhn, 1 83 1. 
Gray. Mosaic Record and the Earth'^s Antiquity. Lond., 1851. 
Greaves (d. 1676). Observatt. ijt Per sicu?n Pent. Versioneni. 
Green, J. B. Hebrew Migration from Egypt. 2d ed. Lond., 1882. 
Green, W. Song of Deborah. . . Travis, and Com. Lond., 1723, 
Green, W. H. "Genuineness of the Pentateuch." Princeton Rev., 

Jan., 1878. 
Green, W. H. The Pentateuch Vindicated from the Aspersions of 

Bishop Colenso. New York, 1863. 
Green, W. H. " Prof. W. Robertson Smith on the Pentateuch." 

Presbyt. Review, 1882, p. 108. 
Green, W. H. Moses and the Prophets. New York, 1883. 
Green, W. H. "Was Moses the Author of the Pentateuch.?" 

Herzog's Encyck. Am. ed. by Schaff j.?7. " Pentateuch." 
Gregory (of Nyssa). Mystica Vitae Mosis Ennar ratio. Lat. 

trans. Basel, 1521. 
Gresswell. Objections of Colenso Unfoimded. Lond., 1863. 
Gretillat. " Wellhausen et sa M^thode dans sa Critique du Pen- 

tateuque." Revue de Theol. et de Philos, Sept., 1883. 
Gretillat. " La Th^orie du Sacrifice L^vitique d'apr^s Baehr et 

Oehler." Lbid., 1881. 
Grevin. Nouvelle etude sur le chapitre premier de la Genese. 

Paris, 1859. 
Griesinger. D. Authentie d. A. T. Schriften. Stuttg., 1804. 
Griesinger. Ueber d. Pentateuch. Lbid., 1^06. 
Griffin. Colenso and the Pentateuch. Lond., 1863. 
Grill. Die,Erzvdter der Menschheit. Leipz., 1875. 
Grilliot. Etudes H'istoriques et Crit. sur les Religiojts. Paris, 1883. 
Grimmel. De Lapidum Cidtu apud Patriarchas. JMarburg, 1853. 



432 The PejitateiicJi: Its Origin and Structure. 

Grohmann. Einzig M'ogl. Standpjinkt die Offe7ibarung zu 

beu7'theilen. Leipz., 1798. 
Grohmann. Offenbarungti.Mythologie. Berlin, 1789. 
Grohman n . Die Holier e Relig. Ueberzeugimg. Hamb . , 1 8 1 1 . 
Gronemann. Die Jo7iathanische Pentateuch-Uebersetzung in ihrem 

Verhdltnisse zur Halacha. Leipz., 1879. 
Groot. History of the Israetites and JndcBans. New York, 1879. 
Groser. Introduction to Josh., Jud., Ruth, a Sam. Loncl., 1881. 
Grosse. Atlgevieiiie Historisch-Krit. Einleitung in sdjnjutlicke 

Ka7ion. B'ucher d. Alten Test. Leipz., 182 1. 
Grotius. Expiicatio Decalogi, etc. Amsterd., 1640. 
Grotius. Annotationes in V. T. 3 tomi. Halle, 1775. 
Gruner. Diatr. de PriiJiitiaruni Obtatio7ie ac Consecratio7ie. 

Leyden, 1739. 
Gumpbach. IJeber den Altjudische7i Kale7ider. Brussels, 1848. 
Guthe. De Foederis Notio7ie Jere7}iia7ia. Leipz., 1877. 
Guthe. Frag7nente ei7ier Lederhandschrift e7ith. Mose'^s Letzte 

Rede, etc. Leipz., 1883. 
Guttler. E771pir.Kritikd.M0s. Urgeschichte. Freiburg, 1877. 
Guyau. '* De Origine des Religions." Rev. Phitos., D^c, 1879. 
Guyot. The Bible Cos77iogo7iy in the Light of Moder7i Scie7ice. New 

York, 1884. Cf. Dana in Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1885. 
Hachnelt. Der Thur77ibau zu Babel. Heidelb., 1880. 
Hackett. '* First Eleven Chapters of Gen.," etc. Bibliotheca Sac., 

xxii. p. 395. 
Hackmann. Praecida7tea Sacra S. A?ii77iadv. Phil. C7^it. exhib. 

Genesin, Exod., et Leviticu77i. Leyden, 1735. 
Haeckel. Evolutio7t of Man. 2 vols. Lond., 1879. 
Haeckel. History of Creatio7i. 2 vols. Lond., 1876. 
Hagel. Apologie des Moses. Sulzbach, 1828. 
Haggenmacher. Der Urspru7ig d. Religio7i, etc. Leipz., 1883. 
Hahn. De Religio7iis et Superstitionis N'atura et Ratio7ie. Bres- 

lau, 1834. 
Haitsma. Curae Philol. Exegeticae i7i Ge7iesin. Franeq., 1753. 
Hal6vy. " Esdras et le Code Sacerdotal." Revue de IPIistoire dss 

Relig., iv. p. 22. 
Hal^vy. Mela7iges de Critique et dHistoire relatifs aux Peupicj 

Se77ntiques. Paris, 1883. 
Hamburger. " The Tabernacle in Canaan." Su7tday-Sch. Ti77ics, 

Sept. 22, 1884. 
Hamburger. Re'dl-E7icyc. fir Bibcl u. Tal77iud. Strelitz, 1870. 
Hamelmanne. Conwi. i7i Pe7itateuchu77t. Dilingae, 1563. 
Hamilton. A Ge7ieral l7itroductio7i to the Study of the Hebrew 

Scriptures. Dublin, 18 14. 
Hamilton, W. T. The Pe7itateuch a7id its Assaila7its. Edinb., 

1852. 
Hamm. Exercitat. Philol. Sac. de Ara htteriore. Herborn, 17 15. 
Haneberg. Einleitujigin Alt. n. JV. T'est. Regensb., 1876. 
Haneberg. Die Religi'dsen Alterthihner der Bibel. 4te Aufl. 

MUnchen, 1869. 



LiteratiLve of the PentatciicJi. 433 

Hannecker. Die Philist'der. Eichstatt, 1872. 

Happel. Anlage d. Menschen ziii" Religion. Leyden, 1877. 

Hardt. Ephenierid. Philol. quib. difficil. qiiaedaj/i Loca Pent at. 

Explicata. Helmst., 1693, 1696. 
Harkness. Egyptian Life and Hist, according to the Monranents. 

New York, 1884. 
Harm an. Introd. to $tiidy of Heb. Scriptures . 3d ed. New 

York, 1 88 1. 
Harris. Man Primeval. Lond., 1849. 
Harris. Pre- Adamite Earth. Lond., 1850. 
Hartmann, A. T. AicfizVariingen i'lber Asien. Oldenburg, 1806. 
Hartmann, A. T. Die Enge Verbindzmg des Alien Testament mit 

d. Nenen , e tc . Hamb . , 1 83 1 . 
Hartmann, A. T. Linguistische Einleitntig in d. Stndini?i d. 

B'llcher d. Alt. Test. Bremen, 1818. 
Hartmann, A. T. Historisch-Kritische Eorschii/tgen i'lber d. Bil- 

diingd. Zeit alter n. den Plan d. Funf Biicher Mose's. Rostock, 

1831. 
Hartmann, jl. von. Das Religiose Bewnsstsein d. Menschheit im 

Stnfengang seiner Entwickelung. Berlin, 1882. 
Haselmann, Der Einziig Is. in Canaan. Barmen, 1872. 
Hasse, F. R. Geschichte des Alien Bnndes. Leipz., 1863. 
Hasse, J. G. Aussichten zu Kunftigen Aifkldriingen ilber d. Alt. 

Test, in B7'iefe7i. Jena, 1785. 
Hasse, J. G. Entdecknngen im Felde d. Ultesten Erde-iind Men- 

schengeschichte. Halle, 1805. 
Hatton. The Law and the Prophets. Lond., 1866. 
Haufif. Offenbariuigsglaiibe 21. Kritik d. Bibl. Geschichtsbilcher . 

Stuttg., 1849. 
Haug. Das Alt. Test, von " Der von Schiloh.^'' Berlin, 1872. 
Haupt. See Delitzsch, Fried. 

Haupt. Keilinschriftliciie Sintfliithbericht . Leipz., 1881, 
Hauser. Fabidous Gods denounced in the Bible. Phil., 1880. 
Hausrath. Geschichte d. Alttest. Literatiir. Heidelb., 1874. 
Haver nick. Handb. d. Llistorisch-Kritischen Einleitung in d. Alte 

Testamejit. Erlang., 1836-49. A second edition was edited 

by Keil, 1849, 1854-56 (in English, Edinb., 1852). 
Hawks. Egypt a Witness to the Bible. New York, 1850. 
Heath. "The Exodus." Pal. Explor. Fund. Qnart., July, 1883. 
Hebreiv Migration from Egypt. Lond., 1879. 
Hecht. Der Pentateuch. Explan. from Raschi. Braunschw., 

1848. 
Hecker. Die Israelii eti u. der Monotheismus. From the Dutch. 

Leipz., 1879. 
Hedge. Primeval World of Hebrew Tradition. Boston, 1869. 
Heibert. Vom Paradies bis Z7im Schilftneer . Parallelen zwischen 

biblischen und aiisserbiblischen Berichten. Gera, 1881. 
Heidenheim. Die Samar. Pentateuch-Version. Leipz., 1884. 
Heidegger. Hist or ia Sacra Patriarcharum. Amsterd., 1688. 
Heiligstedt. Prdperation zur Genesis. Halle, 1872. 



434 ^^^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Heilprin. The Hist. Poetry of the Ancient Hebrews. 2 vols. 

New York, 1880. 
Heim. Bibelstunden i'lber d. Erste B. Mosis. Stuttg., 1845 ff* 
Heinemann. Geschichte der Jnden. Berlin, 1849. 
Heinemann. D. Wahrheiten d. Is. Religion Nachgewieseii. Ber- 

^ lin, 1853. 
Heinemann. Der Pentateuch mit Uebersetzung, Targ. a. Coin- 

mentatoreii. 5 Bde. Berlin, 1831-33. 
Hellwald. Cult urges c hie hte in ihrer Natur. Entwickelung. 

Augsb., 1874. 
Hempbell. " Chrisfs Testimony to the Mos. Authorship of the 

Pentateuch." Southern Presbyt. Rev., Jan., 1884. 
Hengstenberg. Die Geschichte Bileanis u. Seine IVeissagungen. 

Berlin, 1842. Eng. Trans., Edinb., 1848. 
Hengstenberg. "■ Moses u. Colenso." Evangel. Kirchen-Zeitung, 

Jan., Feb., 1864. 
Hengstenberg. Die Atithentie d. Pentateuchs. Berlin, 1836-39. 
Hengstenberg. Geschichte d. Reiches Gottes unter d. Alien Bunde. 

Berlin, 1869-71. In English, Edinb., 1871, 1873. 
Hengstenberg. Die Bucher Moseys und ^gypten. Berlin, 1841. 

Eng. Trans., Edinb., 1845 ? ^^w York, 1850. 
Hengstenberg. Beitrdge zur Einleitung ins Alte Test. 3 Bde. 

Berlin, 1831-39. 
Hengstenberg. Die Opfer der Heiligen Schriften. Berlin, 1852. 
Hengstenberg. " Das Passa." Evangel. Kirchen-Zeitung, 1852, 

Nos. 16-18. 
Henry, F. A. " The Critical Study of the Scriptures." Princeton 

Reviezu, 1883, p. 294. 
Henry, F. A. "Reconstruction in Religious Thought." Ibid., 

July, 1884. 
Henry, M. Co?n. on the O. and N. Testaitients. Lond., 1875. 
Henry, P. Expos, of GeTi.i.,-xi. Lond., 1838. 
Hensler. Beinerkungen ilber Stellen in den Psahiicn und in der 

Gejtesis. Hamburg, 1791. 
Henslow. "First Chapter of Genesis." Christ. Apologist, April, 

1877. 
Herbst. De Pentateuchi Quatuor Librorum Posterior2i7n Auctorc ct 

Editor e. Tiibing., 18 17. 
Herbst. Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in die Heil. Schriften d. 

Allen Test. (Completed and published, after the author's death, 

by Welte.) 4 Bde. Freiburg, 1840-44. 
Herberger. Das Erste B. Moses ausgelegt. Halle, 1854. 
Herder. Aelteste Urlziuide des Menschengeschlechts . Riga, 1774. 
Hereford. " Trustworthiness of Hebrew Traditions." Atlantic 

Monthly, Nov., 1882, p. 597. 
Heringa. " Ueber den Begrijf, die UnentbehrlichJceit u. den rich- 

tigen Gebrauch der Bib. Kritili'''' (aus der Hollandisch von 

Beckhaus). Offenbach, 1804. 
Hershon. Genesis, with a Talmudical Commentary i^Pcnt. accord. 

to Talmud). Lond., 1883. 



Literature of the Pentatetcch. 435 

Hertz. Sindm den Buchern der Konzge Spur en d. Pentateuchs u. d. 

Mas. Gesetze ziifinden? Altona, 1822. 
Herwerden. Disputatio de Libro Josuae. Groningen, 1826. 
Ilerxheimer. Der Pentateuch erkVdrt, ^Xo.. Leipz., 1864. 
Hertwig. Tabelten zttr Einleit. i?i d. Kanon. u. Apok. Bucher d. 

Alien Test, (neu bearbeitet von Kleinert) . Berlin, 1869. 
Herzberger. Einleitungm die Bibel. Friedberg, 1840. 
Herzfeld. Geschichte d. Volkes Israel. 3 Bde. Nordhausen, 

1847-57. 
Herzog. Relil-Encyk. Hamb., 1854 fF. 2te Aufl. Leipz., 1877 ff. 
Hess. Bibliothek der Heiligen Geschichte. ZUricIi, 1791. 
Hess. Geschichte d. Israeliten vor de?t Zeitefi Jesu. Ziirich, 

1776-88. 
Heumann. De Fato Uxoris non Miracidoso. Jena, 1706. 
Hewson. The Heb. and Greek Scriptures compared with Oriental 

History, etc. Lond., 1870. 
Hey man de Ricqles. Demonstration de la Divinite du Pentateuque. 

Lyon, 1844. 
Heyse et Tischendorf. Biblia Sacra Latina V. T. Hieronyjno 

Interprete, etc. Leipz., 1873. 
Hezel. Versuch einer Geschichte d. Bibl. Kritik d. Alien Testa- 

inents. Halle, 1780. 
Hezel. Lehrbuch der Kritik d . Alt . Test. Leipz., 1783. 
Hezel. Geschichte d. Heb. Sprache u. Litter atur. Halle, 1776. 
Hezel. Bibl. Redl-Lexikon. Leipz., 1783, 1785. 
Hezel. Ueber die Quellen d. Mosa. Uigeschichte . Lemgo, 1780. 
Hezel. Gedanken ilber d. Babylon. Stadt-u. Thurnibau. Hild- 

burg., 1774. 
Hicks. " Primitive Man." Baptist Quarterly, July-Sept., 1884. 
Hildebrandt. Diss.inPentateuchum. Helmst., 1684. 
Hilgenfeld. " Vatke's Ansicht Uber Pentateuch- Josua." Zeitsch.f. 

Wiss. Theologie, H. i, 2, 1885. 
Hill, D. J. "Practical Bearings of Mod. Bib. Criticism. Proceed- 
ings of Second Baptist Autiun. Conference, Boston, 1883. 
Hill, D.J. "Antecedent Probabilities of a Revelation." Prince- 
ton Rev., Sept., 1883. 
Hill, M. ChiHst or Colenso . Lond., 1863. 
Hill, T. " Erasmus Darwin." Bibliotheca Sac, xxxv. p. 461. 
Hill, T. " The First Chapter of Genesis." Bibliotheca Sac, 

xxxii. p. 308. 
Hillen. Relig. Vorstellungen im Anfa^ige d. Geschichte. Coesfeld, 

1880. 
Hilliger. Das Debora-Lied. Uebersetzt u. erkldrt. Giessen, 1867. 
Himpel. " Selbstandigkeit, Einheit. u. GlaubwUrdigkeit d. Buches 

Josua." Tubing. Theol. Quartalsch., 1864, p. 385; 1865, 

p. 227. 
Hirsch. Der Pentateuch Hebrder Uebersetzt u. Erldutert. 5 Bde. 

Frankfurt, 1876. 2te Aufl. (Genesis), 1883. 
Hirschfelder. Scriptures Defended (against Colenso). Toronto, 

Can., 1864. 



43^ The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Hirt. Der Tempd Salojnon's. Berlin, 1809. 

Hirzel. De Chaldaismi Biblici Origijie et Auctoritate Critica. 

Leipz., 1830. 
Hirzel. De Pent. Versionis Syr. Indole. Leipz., 1825. 
History against Coleiiso. Lond., 1864. 
Hitzig. Begriff der Kritik a7nAlt. Test. Heidelb., 1831. 
Hitzig. Review of Von Bohlen's Gejiesis and Bleek's De Libro 

Genes eos. St? id. it. Kritiken, 1837, iv. 
Hitzig, Urgeschichte u. Mythologieder Phitist'der. Leii3z., 1845. 
Hitzig. Ostern u. Pfingsten. Heidelb., 1837-38. 
Hitzig. Die Psaljnen. Leipz., 1863. 
Hitzig. Geschichte d. Votkes Israet. Leipz., 1869. 
Hoare, J. N. " Relig. of the Egyptians." Nineteenth Century, 

Dec, 1878. 
Hoare, W. H. Letter to Bp. Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
Hoare, W. H. Veracity of tJie Book of Genesis. Lond., i860. 
Hobbes. Leviathan. Amsterd., 1670; Lond., 1882. 
Hochstadter. " Die Mosa. Volkertafel." Jud. Literaturblatt, 

1880, p. 170. 
Hodge. " First Two Chapters of Gen." Universal. Quarterly , 

April, 1885. 
Hody. De Bibliornni Textibtis Originalibiis , Versionibus Graecis 

et Lat. Vulg. 4 vols. Oxford, 1705. 
Hoelemann. D. Einheit d. Beiden Sch'dpfungsgeschichte (Gen. 

i.-ii.). Berlin, 1862. 
Hoff. Die Mosaischen Opfer. Warschau, 1845. 
Hoffmann, A. G. Entwurf d. Hebrd. Alterthilmer. Weimar, 

1832. 
Hoffmann, D. " Abhandlungen iiber die Pentateuch-Gesetze." 

Magazin f. die Wiss. d. Jndenthicms, 1879-80. 
Hoffmann, W. Die G'ottliche Stufenordtinng im Alt. Testament. 

Berlin, 1854. 
Hoffmeister. Moses n. Josiia, Eine Kriegshistorische Stiidie. 

Wien, 1878. 
Hofmann. Der Schriftbeweis. 2te Aufl. Ndrdlingen, 1857-60. 
Hofmann. Aegyptische u. Israelitische Zeitrechnnng. Ibid., 1847. 
Hoijer. De TransitiL Isi'-aelit. per Mare Riibrujn. Jena, 1759. 
Holberg. Jud. Geschichte v. Erschaffung d. Welt. Band i., The 

Old Test. Altona, 1747. 
Hollenberg. " Zur Textkritik d. Buches Josua." Zeitsch. f. d. 

Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1881. 
Hollenberg. " Die Deuteronom. Bestandtheile d. B. Josua." Stud. 

u. Kritiken, 1874, p. 462. 
Hollenberg. Programni uber die Alexand. Uebersetzung d. B. 

Josua. Mors, 1876. 
Hollmann. Com. Philol.-Crit. in Caj^men Deborae (Jud. v.). 

Leipz., 1818. 
Holmes. Vet. Test. Gr. cum Variis Led. ed. R. Holmes, contin., 

Jacob Parsons. 5 vols. Oxford, 1798-1827. 
Holste. Iter Israelii arum ex jEgypto ad Terra m Canaan. Ros- 
tock, 1707. 



Literature of the Pentateuch. 43/ 

Holzner, Mimdiis a Deo Creatiis. Aschaffenb., 1840. 

Romberg. Lecture siir V Interpretatio7i a donner aux Premiers 

Versets de la Genese. Rouen, 1883. 
Hommel. " Zur Altbabylon, Chronologic. " Zeitsch.f. Keilschrift- 

forschimg, etc., i., 1884. 
Hommel. Bab.-Assyrische it. Israelitische Geschichte in Tabelleii- 

form. Leipz., 1880. 
Hommel. " Die Lage des Gartens Eden nach den neuesten keilin- 

schriftlichen Forschungen." Augsburg Allgemeiiie Zeitit7ig 

(Wissenschaftliche Beilagen), Nos. 229-231. 
Honert. Dissertationes Hist, de CreationeMtindi. Leyden, 1738. 
Hopfner (and August!) . Exeget. Handbtich d. A. Testai7ient . 

Leipz., 1 797-1 800. 
Hopkins. "Exposition of the Original Text of Gen. i., ii." 

Bibliotheca Sac, xxix. pp. 510, 716. 
Hopkins. Exodus : Traits, with Notes, Critical, etc. Lond., 

1784. 
Home. " Earliest Epochs of Authentic Chronology." Fortnightly 

Rev.., Oct., 1862. 
Home. Introdiictiotito the Critical Study of the Scriptures. 13th 

ed. Lond., 1872. 
Horsley. Bib. Criticism on the O. Test. Lond., 1845. 
Horst. Lev. xvii.-xxvi. ti. Hezekiel. Colmar, 1881. 
Hottinger. Exercitatt. de Pentateucho Samaritano. Zurich, 1644. 
Hottinger. Historiae Creationis Exanien. Heidelb., 1659. 
Hottinger. Diss, de Heptaplis Paris, ex Pentat.i7istit2da. Zurich, 

1649. 
Hottinger. Juris Hebraeoritni Leges CCLXI. ZUrich, 1655. 
Hottinger. De Deciinis Jitdaeoriun Exercitatt . Leyden, 1713. 
Hotzl. Jakob niid EsaiL, Typik und Kasnistik. Munchen, 1881. 
Houbigant. Prolegoi?iena iji Sac. Script. Paris, 1745. 
Houbigant. Notae Criticae in Universos V. T. Biblos. Frank- 
furt, 1777. 
Houghton. Some of Colenso'^s Objections Examined. Lond., 1863. 
Howard. LXX. Version of the Pentateuch. Lond., 1856-57. 
Huber, Einleit. in d. sdfnmtl. Bucher d. Heil. Sch?'ift. Basel, 

1841. 
Hufnagel. Moseh wie er sich zeichnet in seiner Geschichte. Frank- 
furt, 1822. 
Hug. De Opere Sex Dierum Coin. Freiburg, 1821. 
.lug. Die Mos. Geschichte des Men schen. Leipz., 1793. 
Hug. " Ueber das Mos. Gesetz vom Jobeljahr." Zeitsch. f.d. 

Erzbisthnm Freiburg, i. 
Hug. De PentateucJii Versione Alex. Tubing. , 18 18. 
Hlillmann. Staatsverfassiing der Israeliten. Leipz., 1834. 
Hiillmann. Ursprnngd. Religion d. Alterthnms. Berlin, 1804. 
LIummelauer. Der Bibl. Sch'opfimgsbericht. Freiburg, 1877. 
Hupfeld. Die Qiiellen der Genesis. Berlin, 1853. 
Hupfeld. Co77zmentatio de Pri77iitiva et Vera Festoru77i apnd 

Hebraeos Ratio7ic. Programme. Halle, 1852-65. 



43 S The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure. 

Hupfeld. Die Psalmen. Gotha, 1867-70. 

Hurwitz. Sage7t der Hebrder (from the English). 2te Aufl. 

Leipz., 1828. 
Hutton. Silent Witness of the Hebrew to the Truth of the Historical 

Scriptures, Lofid., 1882. 
Huxley. " Method and Results of Ethnology." Fortnightly Rev., 

June, 1865. 
Iken. " De Institutis et Ceremoniis Legis Mosaicae ante Mosen." 

Dissertatt. Phil. Theol., etc. Leyden, 1749-70. 
Iken. Antiquitates Hebraicac. Bremen, 1764. 
Iken. De Cultii Qttotidiajio Templi. Bremen, 1736. 
Ilgen. Die Urkunden des Jerus. Tempel-Archivs in ihrer 

Urgestalt. Halle, 1798. 
Inglis. Notes on Genesis. Edinb., 1877. 
Ingram. Bp. Colenso's Objections Ajiswered. Lond., 1863. 
Isaac. Co7n. in Pentateuchimi. Constan., 15 18. 
Isaac. Generations of Isaac (fZoxa.'). Amsterd., 1708. 
Isaacs. Custo77ts, Rites, etc., of the Jews. 2d ed. Lond., 1836. 
" Israel im Lichte d. Neuen Testaments." Zeitsch. f. Kirch. Wiss., 

etc., Heftx., 1883. 
Jacobus. Notes Grit., etc., on Genesis. New York, 1865. 
Jacobus. Notes on Exodus. New York, 1874. 
Jacolliot. La Gen^se de V Humanite . Paris, 1880. 
Jaeger. " Modern Conception of the Development of the 

Religion of Israel." Am. Church Review, July, 1883. 
Jahn. Einleit. in d. G'dttlichen B'ucher d. Alt. Testaments . 2te 

Aufl. 1802. 
Jahn. Hist, of Hebrew Comiiionwealth. 3d ed. Lond., 1840. 
Jahn. Bib. Archceology . 5th ed. New York, 1859. 
Jahn. " Beitrage zur Vertheidigung der Echtheit d. Pentateuchs." 

V>QngeVs, Archiv f. d. Theologie, etc., 18 18-19. 
James. Mdise et Darwiii. Paris, 1882. 
Jamieson. Authentic, of the Pent. History . Lond., 1802. 
Jamieson, R. (Fausset and Brown). Com. on the O. a?id N. Tests. 

4 vols. New York, 1875. 
Jamieson, R. The Pentateuch ajtd Book' of foshua. Phil., i860. 
Jarrel. Old Test. Ethics. Greenville (Texas), 1882. 
Jatho. Blicke in d. Bedeidimgd. Mos. Ctdt^is. Hildesheim, 1876. 
Jatho. Grimdz'uge d. Alttest. Chronol. Ibid., 1856. 
Jenisch. Sollte Religion dent Menschen jemals entbehrlich werden / 

Berlin, 1797. 
Jerusalem. Briefe iieber d. Mos. Schriften. Braunschw., 1783. 
Jewish Reply to Colenso. Lond., 1865. 
Johannsen. Die Kosniogonischeit Ansichten der Inder u. Hcbrlicr, 

etc. Altona, 1883. 
Johlson. Die Funf B'ucher Mosis. Frankfurt, 183 1. 
Johnson, F. " Theistic Evolution." Andovcr Rev., April, 18S4. 
Johnson, F. " The Curse upon Nature" (Gen. iii. 14-19). Bap- 
tist Quart. Review, April, 1884. 
Johnson, J. B. Strjicture and Dcvel. of the Bible. Lond., 1877. 



Literature of the Pentateuch. 439 

Johnson, S. Oriental Religions and their Relation to l/jiiversal 

Religio7i. Lond., 1879. 
Johnstone, F. Vindication of Book of Gen. Lend., 1838. 
Johnstone, W. H. Israel after the Flesh. Lond., 1850. 
Johnstone, W. H. Israel in the World. Lond., 1854. 
Jones, J. F. Egypfs Biblical Relations, etc. Lond., i860. 
Jones, W. Hoinilet. Com. on the Boolz of Numbers. Lond., 1880. 
Josephiis, The Works of. Trans, by Whiston. Baltmiore, 1839. 

Editions of the original text: Ittig, Leipz., 1691 ; Hudson, 

Oxf., 1720; Havercamp, Amst., 1726; Oberthiir, Leipz., 1782- 

85; Richter, /<5/V/., 1827 f . ; Dindorf, Paris, 1845-47; Bekker, 

Leipz., 1855-56. 
Jost. Geschichted. Judenthums 21. seiner Sect e7t. 3 Bde. Leipz., 

1857-63. 
Jouet. Hist, des Religions de tons les Royaumes du Monde. 6 vols. 

Paris, 1724. 
Joule. Notes on Leviticus. Lond., 1879. 
Jukes. Law of Offeri7igs (Lev. i.-vii.). Lond,, 1854. 
Jukes. Types of Genesis considered. Lond., 1857. 
Jiilicher. " Die Quellen von Ex. vii. 8-xxiv." JahrbYicher f. 

Prot. Theologie, Hefte i, 2, 1882. 
Junius (du Jou) . Analysis Expos, in Pentateuch. 1604. 
J u nilius . De Par lib us Legis Divinae . Paris , 1556. 
Jurieu. Histoire d'itigue des Dogjnes et des Cidtes. Amsterd., 

1704; Lond., 1705. 
Juynboll. Comni. in Hist. Gentis Samaritance. 
Kaiser. De Cherubis Mosaicis. Erlangen, 1827. 
Kaiser. Com. in Priora Geneseos Capita. Nurnb., 1829. 
Kalisch. Hist, and Crit. Comjnentary on the Old Test. Genesis, 

Lond., 1858. Ex., 1855. Lev., 1867-72. 
Kalisch. Bible Studies. Part i., The Prophecies of Balaam. 

Lond., 1877. 
Kalkar. Cantici Deborae Interpretatio. Copenh., 1883. By the 

same author an Exeget. Handbuch (in Dutch) to the Old Test. 

Vol. i., Gen.-Lev. Ibid., 1836. 
KalthofF. Handb. d. Hebrdischot Alterthihner. Miinster, 1840. 
Kalthoff. yus Matrinzonii Veterum Indorum cu7n eode7n Hebrae- 

oru77i Jure s2Lbi7ide Co77iparatu77i. Bonn, 1829. 
Kampf. •' Ueber die Bedeutung des Wortes 'Sabbath' im Penta- 
teuch." Monatschrift f. Gesch. u.Wiss.d. yudenthu7ns, 1862, 

p. 144. 
Kamphausen. " Bemerkungen liber die Stiftshutte." Stud u. 

Kritiken, 1858, p. 97; 1859, P- i^o- Replied to by Fries, 

ibid., p. 103. 
Kamphausen. Die Chro7iologie d. Hebrdische7i Kd7iige. Bonn, 1883. 
Kamphausen. Das Lied Mosis. Leipz., 1862. 
Kamphausen. " Bemerkungen liber einige Stelle d. 4 Cap. der 

Genesis.'" Stud. n. Kritike7i, 1861, i. 
Kamphausen. Review of Riehm's Co7n7nent. de Natura et Notione 

Sy77ib. Cheruboru77i. Ibid., 1864, iv. 



440 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structitre. 

Kanne. Biblische Untersuchungen tt. Auslegung mit u. ohne 

Poleinik (contests Vater's views). 1819, p. 79; 1820, p. 72. 

Reviews De Wette's Einleit., 1820, pp. 1-72. 
Kanne. Erste Urkmiden d. Geschichte, etc. Frankfurt, 1808. 
Kapp. Ur sprung der Menschen 21. V'olker nach d. Mos. Genesis. 

Niirnb., 1829. 
Karch. Die Mos. Stiftshutte, etc. 2 Bde. WUrzburg, 1876, 
Karlstadt. See Carlstadt. 
Kaulen. Einleitung in d. Heil. Schrift. A. u. N. Test. Freiburg, 

1876-82. 
Kaulen. Die Sprachverwirrung zu Babel. Mainz, 186 1. 
Kautzsch. See Miihlau. 
Kayser, A. Das Vorexilische Buck d. Urgeschichte Is. 71. seine 

Erweiternng. Strassb., 1874. 
Kayser, A. "Der Gegenwartige Stand d. Pentateuch Frage." 

Arts, in yahrbucher f. Prot. Theologie, 1881, pp. 326, 520, 630. 
Kayser, F. " Ueber d. Theol. Lehre d. Alten Aegypter.'" Der 

Katholik, 1882, p. 616. 
Keary. Dawn of History . Lond., 1878. 

Keerl. Sch'opfungsgesch. u. d. Lehre v. Paradies. Basel, 1861. 
Keerl. Einheit der Bibl. Urgeschichte. Basel, 1863. 
Keil. Der Tempel Sato7no''s. Dorpat, 1839. 
Keil. Apologia Mosaicae Traditionis de Mtindi Hominumque 

Originibus Exponenti^. Dorpat, 1838. 
Keil. Lebrbnch d. Historisch. Krit. Eiiileitiing in d. Kan. u. Apok. 

Schriften d. Alt. Test. 3te Aufl. Frankfurt, 1873. In Eng- 
lish, Edinb., 1873. 
Keil. Apologet. Versuch uber d. Bucher d. Chronik. Berlin, 

1833- 

Keil. " Abhandlung Uber die Gottesnamen im Pentateuch." 
Zeitsch. f. Luther. Theologie, 185 1, p. 215. 

Keil. " Die Opfer des Alt. Test, nach ihrer Symbol, u. Typischen 
Bedeutung." Ibid., 1856, iv. ; 1857, i., ii., iii. 

Keil (and Franz Delitzsch). Biblischer Com. 'uber das Alt. Test. 
Com. on the Pentateuch by Keil. On Gen. and Ex., 3te Aufl., 
1878 ; Lev., Numb., and Deut., 2te Aufl., 1870. 

Keil. Handbuch d. Bibl. Archdologie. Frankfurt, 1875. 

Kelle. Vorurtheilsfreie Wurdigung der Mos. Schriften. Frei- 
burg, 181 1. 

Kemink. Com. de Carinine Deborae. Trajecti ad Rhcnum, 1840. 

Kennedy. Chronol. of Five Books of Moses. Lond., 1762. 

Kennedy. The Pentateuch : its Age and Origin. Lond., 1884. 

Kennicott. A Short Introd. to Hebrew Criticism. Lond., 1774. 

Kennicott. Vetus Test. Hebraicum cum Variis Lectionibus. Oxford, 
1776-80. 

Kenrick. Hist, of Phoenicia. Lond., 1855. 

Kern. " Ueber die Eherne Schlange." BengePs Archiv f die 
Theologie, etc., 1882, p. 396. 

Kidder. Com. on the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Lond., 1694. 

Killisch. Versuch eitier Kritik d. erstenB. Mosis. Berlin, 1841- 



Lite7'attire of the Pentateuch. 441 

Kimchi. Coj7i. zur Genesis. Ed. by Ginsburg. Pressburg, 1842. 

Kimchi. Cofji. in Omnes V. T. Libros. Gotha, 17 13. 

Kingsley. The Gospel of the Pentateuch. Lond., 1854. 

Kinns. Moses and Geology . 3d ed. Lond. and New York, 1882. 

Kircher. Area Noe. Amsterd., 1675. 

Kircher. Turris Babel. Amsterd., 1679. 

Kirsch. Pent at. Syr. ex Polyglott. Angl. Summa Fide edidit. 

Hof, 1787. 
Kittel. " Die Neueste Wendung der Pentateuch-Frage." Studien 

aus Wilrtemberg, 1 881-82. 
Kitto. A Cyctopcedia of Bib. Literature. 3d ed. 3 vols. Lond., 

1869-70. 
Kitto. The Tabernacle atid its Furniture. 1849. 
Kitto. Hist, of Palestine from the Patriarchal Age. Edinb., 

.1843. 
Klaiber. Das Prtesterliche Orakeld. Israeliten. Stuttg., 1865. 
Klee. La Deluge, etc. Paris, 1847. 
Kleimenhagen. Natur d. Geistes nach d. Mos. Lehre. Leipz., 

1878. 
Klein, G. " Die Totaphoth nach Bibel u. Tradition." Jahrbiicher 

f. Prot. Theo logic, vii., p. 666. 
Klein, S. Guide du traducteur du Pentateiique. Colmar, 1852. 
Kleinert. Das Deuteronomitcin und d. Deuterono7niker . Leipz., 

1872. 
Kleinert. " Religionsgesch. Studien zur Theorie des Opfers." 

Stud. u. Kritiken, 1874. 
Kleinert. See Hertwig. 
Klemm. Allgetn. Ctdturgeschichte d. Menschheit . 10 Bde. Leipz., 

1843-52. 
Klostermann. "Das Lied Mose u. das Deuteronomium." Stud. 

71. Kritiken, 1871, p. 249; 1872, pp. 230,450. 
Klostermann. " Ezechiel. Ein Beitrag zu besserer Wiirdigung 

seiner Person u. s. Schrift.'" Stitd. n. Kritiken, iSyy, p. 391. 
Klostermann. " Beitrage zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Penta- 

teuchs." Zeitsch.f Luther. Theologie, 1877, p. 401. 
Klostermann. " Kalendarische Bedeutungdes Jobeljahres." Siud. 

71. Kritike7i, 1880, p. 720. 
Knappert. Religio7i of Israel. From the Dutch. Lond., 1877. 
Kneppelhout. De Re Cibaria Vet. Hebraeor2t77i. Utrecht, 1768-69. 
Kneucker. " Philistaer." ^oho-Tik^Y^ Bibel-Lex. 
Knight. Pe7it. Narrative Vindicated. New York. Wiley. 
Knobel. Die Bucher Niunej'i, Deutero7io77iiu77t u. Josua erkldrt 

{KurzgefasstesFxeget. Ha7idb. Z7i77i Alt. Test.). Leipz., 1861. 

A new edition is in preparation by Dillmann. 
Knobel. Die Volkertaf el der Genesis. Giessen, 1850. 
Knox. Races of Me7t. 2d ed. Lond., 1862. 
Knowles. Observatio7is 07i Div. Miss, of Moses. Lond., 1763. 
Kohler. Lehrbuch d. Bibl. Geschichte d. Alt. Test. Erlangen, 

1875 fF. 
Kohler. De Prommciatzone ac Vi Sac. Tetragra77i. Ibid.,\Z6^. 



442 The Pentateuch : Its Origin ajid Striccture. 

Kohler. Der Segen Jacobs tintersucht ii. erkVdrt. Berlin, 1867. 

Kohn. De Pentateucho Sajnaritano. Leipz., 1865. 

Kohn. Saina?'. Stitdien. Breslau, 1868. 

Kohut. D. Persische Pentateuchubersetzimg. Leipz., 187 1. 

Kolb. Cultnrgesch. d. Me7ischheit. 2te Aufl. Leipz., 1872. 

Konig, F. E. Die Haiiptprobleine d. Altisraelit. Religionsgeschidite 

gegen'uber den Ejitivickeliuigstheoretikern. Leipz., 1884. 
Konig, F. E. De Criticae Sacrae Argiunento e Linguae Legibus 

Repetito. Treats Gen. i.-xi. Leipz., 1879. 
Konig, F. E. " Beitrage zur Bibl. Chronologie.'^ Zeitsch. f. Kirch. 

PViss., etc., 1883, p. 281. 
Konig, F. E. Der Offenbarungsbegriff des Alien Testaments. 2 

Bde. Leipz., 1882. 
Konig, F. E. Falsche Extrej?te d. neuereii Kritik d. A. Testa- 
ments. Leipz., 1885. 
Konig, J. Das Alter u. die Entstehungsweise d. Pentateuchs . 

Freiburg, 1884. 
Konig, L. Alttest. Studien. Berlin, 1839. 
Koppe. Israelitas non 215 sed 430 Annos in Egypto co7nmoratos 

esseefficitnr. Getting., 1777. 
Koppen. Versiich zur Bestimviung d. Verh'dltniss einer Offenba- 

rung 2u d. Me7ischen. Gotting., 1797. 
Kosters. Historie-beschouwing van d. Deuteronomist, etc. Ley- 
den, 1868. 
Krall. Studien zur Gesch. d. Alien Aegypten. Wien, 1884. 
Kranold. De Anno Hebraeoruni Jubilaeo. Getting., 1838. 
Krause. Tabernacle and Priesthood. Lond., 1879. 
Krehl. Religion die Vorislamischen Araber . Leipz., 1863. 
Krieg. Monotheisimis d. Offenbarung u. d. Heidenthum. Mainz, 

1880. 
Krummacher Wanderu-ngen Is. durch d. Wilste nach Kanaan. 

Elberfeld, 1834. 
Krummacher. Paragraphen zur Heil. Geschichte. Berlin, 18 18. 
Krummel. Religion d. Alt. Aegypter. Heidelb., 1883. 
Kuebel. Soc. ti. VolkwirthscJiaftliche Gesetzgebung d. Alt. Test. 

Wiesbaden, 1870. 
Kuebel. Alttest. Gesetz u. seiiie Urkunde. Stuttg., 1857. 
Kuenen. " Ezekiel." Mode7'n Rev., Oz\.., \Z^^. 
Kuenen. De Profeten en de Profetie ofider Israel. Leyden, 1875. 
Kuenen. Prophets and PropJiecy in Israel. Lond., 1877. 
Kuenen. The Religioti of Israel. From the Dutch. 3 vols. 

Lond, 1874. 
Kuenen. De Vijf Boeken van Moses. Leyden, 1872. Numerous 

articles of his relating to Pent, criticism have appeared in the 

Theol. Tijdschrift &\Y\ce 1870. 
Kuenen. " Jahve and the ' other Gods."* '■ Theolog. Revie^v, July, 

1876. 
Kuenen. Volksgodsdicnst en Wereldgodsdienst . Leyden, 1882. 
Kuenen. National Religiotis aiid Utiiversal Religions. Lond. and 

New York, 1882. 



Literature of tJie PentateiicJi. 443 

Kuenen. Pent, and Book of Josh. Ed. by Colenso. Lond., 

1865. 
Kuenen. Historisch-Krit . Onderzoek naar het Ontstaaft en de 

Verzaineling van de Boeken des Onden Verbonds. Bd. i. 

Ley den, 1861. 
Kiiinol. Gesch. d. J'iidischen Volkes von Abraham. Leipz., 1791. 
Kuhl. Anfdnge d. Meiischengeschlechts , etc. Mainz, 1876. 
Kiiper. Das Priestej'thiun d. Alt. Bundes. Berlin, 1866. 
Kurtz. DasMos. Opfer. Mitau, 1842. 
Kurtz. Der Atttest. Opfercidtus. Ibid., 1862. 
Kurtz. Sacrificial Worship of the Old Test. Edinb., 1863. 
Kurtz. " Praliminarien zu einer Construction der Heil. Ge- 

schichte." Zeitsch. f. Ltither. Theologie, 1842-43. 
Kurtz. Geschichte des Alien Bundes. 3 Bde. Mitau, 1848 fF. 
Kurtz . Histo?y of the Old Testament . 3 vols. Phil., 1859. 
Kurtz. Die Ehen d. S'dhne Gottes. Mitau, 1857. 
Kurtz. Die Sdh?ie Gottes . Ibid., iZ^^. 
Kurtz. Bibtl ti. Astrojiomie. 5te Aufl. Berlin, 1865. 
Kurtz. The Bible and Astronomy. Phil., no date. 
Kurtz. Beit rage znr Vertheidigung 21. Begriindiing der Einheit des 

Pentateiichs. I. Nachweis der Eijiheit von Gen. i.-iv. Ko- 

nigsb., 1844. II. Die Eiiiheit d. Genesis. Berlin, 1846. 
Kurtz. Lehrbuch d. Heil. Geschichte. 13 Aufl. Konigsb., 1874. 
Kurtz. Znr Symbolik d. Mos.Stiftsh'utte. Leipz., 185 1. 
Kurtz. '• Ueber die Symbol. Dignitat des in Numb, xix., Verord- 

niten Ritus." Stud. u. Kritiken, 1846, iii. 
Kurtz. "Ueber die Symbol. Dignitat d. Zahlen an der Stift- 

shiitte." Idem, 1844, ii. 
Kurtzgef assies Handb.zum Alt. Test. (See Knobel and Dill- 

mann.) Leipz., from 1838. 
Knotel. System d. JEgypt. Chronologic. Leipz., 1857. 
Labhardt. Quae de fidaeorum Origine Judicaverint Veteres. 

[Augsburg], 1 88 1. 
Laborde. Commentaire Geographique sur VExode et les Nombres. 

Paris, 1842. 
Lacour. See Renard. 

Ladd. Doctrine of Sacred Scripture. 2 vols. New York, 1883. 
Ladd. " Cherubim.'" BibliothecaSac, xxxiii. p. 32. 
Lagarde. Genesis Graece, etc. Leipz., 1868. 
Lagarde. Vet. Testamenti ab Origine Recensiti Fragmenta apud 

Syros Servata Qidnque. It contains Ex. and Numb., etc., 

accord, to Mss. found in Lond. and Paris. Gotting., 1880. 
Lagarde. Materialien zur Kritik u. Geschichte d. Pentateuchs. 

Leipz., 1867. 
Lagarde. "The meaning of 'Jahve.'" Trans, by A. Duff. 

Bibliotheca Sac, xxxv. p. 544. It originally appeared in 1874 

as appendix to Lagarde''s ed. of Jerome's Psalter. 
Lagarde. The Qiiestion, Whether Mai'riage with a Deceased wife'' s 

Sister is or is not Prohibited in the Mosaic Writings, Answered. 

Gottingen, 1882. 



444 ^/^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Lamy. De Tabernaculo Foederis. Paris, 1720. 

Lamy. Traite Hist. deVAncienne Pdque des Juifs. Paris, 1693. 

Lambert. Le Deluge Mosdique. Paris, 1868. 

Land. Disputatio de Car mine Jacobi. Rotterdam, 1858. 

Lange, C. G. Versuch einer Hannonie d. Heil. u. Profanscri- 

bentenind. Geschichte d. Welt. Baireuth, 1774-80. 
Lange, G. P. See Theologisch-Homiletisches Bibelwerk and Com- 
mentary. 
Langfelder. Symbolik d. Jude7tthmns. Klausenb., 1876. 
Langhans. Haiidb. d. Bibl. Gesch. u. Literatur. Bern., 1881, 
Laniado. Glossa Magna in Pe7itateiichiim. Ven., 1596. 
Larsow. Genesis Uebersetzt u. ErkVdrt. Berlin, 1843. 
Laurie. "The Bible and Assyr. Inscriptions." Bibliotheca Sac, 

xiv. 147. 
Lauth. Geschichtl. Ergebnisse d. Aegyptologie. MUnchen, 1869. 
Lauth. Moses der Ebr'der. Ibid. 

Lavauer. Conference de la Fable avec THistoire Sai?ite. Paris, 1730. 
Layfaye. Histoire dji Cidte des Divinites d' Alexandrie . Paris, 

1884. 
Leathes. Structure of the Old Test. Lond., 1873. 
Leclercq. Histoire de la Divinatio7t dans VAntiquite. Tome 2. 

Les Sacerdoces Divinatoires. 4 vols. Paris, 1882. 
Le Clerc. Com. iji V. Libros Mosis Historicos. Tiibing., 1733. 
Lecointre. La Campagne de Mdise pour la Sortie d'^Egypte. Paris, 

1882. 
•Ledrain. Histoire d'' Israel. Part i, Paris, 1879. Part 2, 1882. 
EAntiquite Devoilee au Moyen de la Genhe, etc. Paris, 1808. 
Lee, F. Epistolary Discourse concerning the Books of Ezra, 

Genuine and Spurious. Lond., 1722. 
Lee, S. Vetics Test. Syriace . . . ad fide7n Codicum MSS. emen- 

davit. Lond., 1824. 
Lee, S. A. " Truth of Mos. Records.'^ Nat. Magazine, vii. 
Lefi^vre. Religions et Mythologies Co7npartes . Paris, 1878. 
Lehmann. Das Gesetz Israel's. Mannheim, 1845. 
Le Mercier. I71 Ge7iesi7i C0771. Geneva, 1598. 
Lemme. Religionsgesch. Bedeutimg d. Dekalogs. Breslau, 1880. 
Lemoine. Defe7ice of Sacred Hist, of the Old Test. Lond,, 1753. 
Lemoine. Vindicat. of Literal Accou7it of Fall. Lond., 175 1. 
Lengerke. Ke7ida7i. Volks-imd Religionsgeschichte Israels. Ko- 

nigsb., 1844. 
Lenormant. " The First Sin." Co7ite77ip. Review, Sept., 1879. 
Lenormant. " The Deluge." Ibid., Nov., 1879. 
Lenormant. "Genealogies bet. Adam and the Deluge." Ibid., 

April, 1880. 
Lenormant. " Ararat and Eden." /<^/<^., Sept., 188 1. 
Lenormant. La Genhe ; avec Distinctio7i des Ji^lh>ie7its Con- 

stitutifs du Texte. Paris, 1883. 
Lenormant. La Ge7ihe, Trad7ictio7i d'^aprh IHebreu, etc. Paris, 

1883. 
Lenormant. Les Onguies dc V Histoire. 3d ed. Paris, 1882-83. 



Literature of the Peritateitch. 445 

Lenormant. The Beginnings of History. (Trans, from 2d ed. 

by F. Brown.) New York, 1882. 
Lenormant. Les Sciettces Occultes in Asie; La Magie chez les 

Chaldeefis, etc. Paris, 1874. 
Lenormant. ChaldoBan Magic. Lond., 1877. 
Lenormant. Les Premieres Civilizations. Paris, 1874. 
Lenormant. Histoire Ancie7i7ie de V Orient jiisqii' aux Guerres 

Me dig lies. Paris, 1881-83. 
Leo. Geschichte des Judischen Staates. Berlin, 1828. 
Leo. Lehrb. d. Universal-Geschichte. 3te Aufl. Halle, 1849. 
Lepsius. Ueber die xxii. Aegyp. K'dnigsdynastie. Berlin, 1856. 
Le Savoureux. " Le Premier Mot de la Bible.'" Rev. Theologigue, 

Juill., 1878. 
Lessing. Beitrdge znr Gesch. u. Literatur (contains so-called 

" Wolfenbiittel Fragments "). Braunschw., 1773 fF. 
Lester. The Pre- Adamite. Phil., Lippincott. 
Leven. D Hygihie des Israelites. Versailles, 1884. 
Levi. Rites and Ceremonies of the Jews. Lond., without date. 
" Lev. xi. 3-7 and Deut. xiv. 6-8." Jour, of Sac. Zz'/., xxxvii. 
Levy. *' Althebra. Siegelsteine nachgewiesen." Zeitsch. d. Dent. 

Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft, xi. p. 318. 
Lewis, T. The Six Days of Creation. New York, 1879. 
Lewis, T. The Bible a7id Science. Schenectady, 1856. 
Lewis, T. Nature a7id the Scriptures. (Vedder Lectures.) New 

York, 1875. 
Lewis, Th. A^itiquities of the Heb. Republic. Lond., 1724-25. 
Leydecker. De Republica Hebraeortmi. Amsterd., 1704. 
Leyrer. " Stiftshiitte.^' Yi&vzog'sRedl-Encyk. isteAufg. " Reini- 

gung." Ibid. 
Liber Libroriwi ; Structure, Li?nitations , and Purpose. New 

York, 1867. 
Lichtenberger. Encyclopedic des Sciences Religieuses . Paris, 1877 fF. 
Lieblein. Egyptian Religioji. Leipz., 1884. 
Lightfoot. Observations on the Book of Genesis. Lond., 1642. 
Lightfoot. Collatio Pejit. Heb. cum Sa7naritico . Lond., 1660. 
Lightfoot. Glea7ii7igs otit of the Book of Exodus. Lond., 1643. 
Lightfoot. Horae Hebraicae. Camb., 1648. In English. 4 voLn. 

Oxford, 1859. ^d- Carpzov, Leipz., 1684. 
Lilly. Ancie7it Religio7i and Modern Thought . Lond., 1884. 
Lindemann. Geschichte der Mei7i7ing dlterer u. neuerer V'dlker. . . 

V071 Gott, Religio7i u. Priesterthu77t. Stendal, 1784-95. 
Lindgren. Grtmdzuge der Geschichte der Judischen Hierarchie. 

Cf. Stud. 71. Kritike7i, 1830, p. 946. 
Linton. Notes on the Book of Nu77ibers. Lond., 1884. 
Lippert. Allg. Gesch. des Priesterthu77ts. Bd. ii. Berlin, 1884. 
Lippert. D. Seelencidt i7i seiner Beziehimg z. Althebrd. Religion. 

Berlin, 1881. 
Lipschiitz. De Co7n77iuni et Simpiici H7imani Generis Origi7ic. 

Hamb., 1864. 
Lisco. Das Alt e Test. 77iit Erkldr7mge7i, etc. Bd. i, 1843. 



44^ The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Lisco. Das Ceremonialgesetz d. Alt. Testament. Berlin, 1842. 
Listor. *' Was bedeutet im Mos. Cultus d. Versohnen? " Theol. 

Tidskr.,'^0. 6, 1878. 
Litton. The Mosaic Dispensation. Bampton Lectures for 1856. 
Lohnis. Latid tc. Volk d. alien Hebrder. Regensb., 1844. 
Lohr. Geschich. d. Heil. Schriften vo7n Anfange der Dinge. 

Berlin, 1881. 
Looman . Geschiedenes der Israelii en . Amsterd . , 1 867 . 
Lonsano. Krit. Com. z. Fentatetich, mit Benictzung Zehn Alier 

Maniischrifte. Amsterd., 1659. 
Lotz. Questiones de Historia Sabbati. Leipz., 1883. 
Louis. " Poor Laws of the Ancient Hebrews." Transactions of 

Sac. of Bib. Archceology, 1884. 
Loveland. " Authority of Moses." U7tiver. Quarterly, iv. 

196. 
Low. Graphische Requisiten u. Erzeugnisse bei den Jiideti. Leipz., 

1870-71. 
Lowengard. Jehova nicht Moloch der Gott. d. alien Hebrder. 

Berlin, 1843. 
Lowman. Ritual of Hebrew Worship. Lond., 1748. 
Lbwy. "Die Letzten Acht Verse des Pentateuchs." Jud. Lit. 

Blatt., 1 88 1, No. 29. 
Lubbock. Prehistoric Tiines. Lond., 1865. 
Ludwig. " Interpretation der Schopfungsgeschichte bei dem 

ApologetenTheophilus." Jahr . f. Prot .Theologie, 1880, p. 717. 
Lund. D. Alien J'udischen Heiligthiujier. Hamb., 1695 ff. 
" L'Unit6 du Sanctuaire chez les H^breux." Rev. de VHistoire des 

Religions, i., 1880. 
Luther. Enarratio7ies in Genesin. See vols, i.-xi. of the Latin 

ed. of L.'s works. Erlangen, 1826-73. 
Luzzatto. " Com. liber d. letzten Abschnitt d. Genesis." Jeschu- 

run, iii., 1859. 
Luzzatto. De Onkelosi Cald. Pentateuchi Versione. Wien, 1830. 
Lyell. Antiqitity of Man. New ed. Lond., 1863. 
Lynch. Exodits of the Child, of Israel. Lond., 1857. 
Lyncken. " Sociale Bedeutung d. Mos. Gesetzes." Beweis d. 

Glaubens, March-June, 1884. 
Lyon. " Results of Modern Criticism." Old Test. Student, Dec, 

1883. 
Macdonald. Introd. to the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Edinb., 1861. 
Macdonald. Defence of Genesis . Ibid., i^^G. 
Macgregor. *' Age of the Pent." Brit, and For. Ev. Rev., 

April, 1877. 
Mackay. Conquest of Canaan (Jos. i.-xii.). Lond., 1884. 
Mackay. Progress of Intellect in Relig. Devel. of the Hebrews. 

2 vols. Lond., 1850. 
MacLean. JewisJi Nature Worship. Cincinnati, 1883. 
Maclear. Book of Joshua. With Notes, etc. Cambridge, 1878. 
MacWhorter. " The Edenic Period of Man." Princeton Rev.y 

July, 1880. 



Literahire of the Pentateuch. 447 

MacWhorter. " Jehovah considered as a Memorial Name.'" Bib- 

liotheca Sac, xiv. p. 98 ; xvi. p. 808 ; xxi. p. 876. 
Mahan. Answer to Bp. Colenso. New York, 1863. 
Maier, F. K. " Aben Esra's Meinung liber den Verfasser des 

Pentateuch." Stud. u. Kritiken, 1832, iii. 
Maier, W. Moses u. Christ us oder das G'ottl. Progravun d. Welt- 

geschichte. Passau, 1876. 
Maimonide. De Cibis Vititis. Copenh., 1734. 
Maimonide. De Jtiribiis Aunt Septimi et JiibilcEi. Frankf., 

1708. 
Maimonides. Reason of the Law of Moses . Lond., 1827. 
Malan. Book of Adam and Eve. From the Ethiopic. Lond., 

1882. 
Mandel. Todtung der Schtachtthiere nach. Is. Ritus. Wien, 1883. 
Mangold. " Sabbath u. Sabbathjahr." SchenkeFs Bibet-Lex. 
Mannheimer. " Der Mosaismus im Gegensatz z. Acgypterthum." 

Jud. Lit.-Btatt, No. 41, 1878. 
Mail's Age in tJie World, etc. By an Essex Rector. Lond., 1865. 
Marbach. " D. Heilige Sage v. Ursprung d. Menschengeschlechts." 

Protest. Kirchenzeit., No. 30, 1878. 
Marbach. "DasBlut: eine Theolog. Studie.'' Zeitsch. f IViss. 

TJieologie, 1866. 
Marck. In precipiias quasdain partes Pentat. Com. Leyden, 1713. 
Maresius. Refitatio Fabidae Preadaiiiiticae. Groning., 1656. 
Marsden. Influence of the Mos. Code on Legislation. Lond., 1862. 
Marsh. Lectures on the Criticism of the Bible. Lond., 1831. 
Marsh. Authenticity of the Five Booths of Moses Vindicated. 

Camb., 1792. 
Marshall. Colenso'' s Errors Exposed. Lond., 1864. 
Marsham. Canon Chronicus Aegypt., Ebr., et. Graec. Lond., 

1672. 
Marti. " Die Spuren der Sogenannten Grundschrift d. Hexa- 

teuchs." Jahrbucher f. Prot. Theologie, 1880, pp. 127, 308. 
Marti. "Das Alte Test, in Kritik u. Kirche."' Volksblatt f. d. 

Ref Kirche d. Schweiz, 188 1, No. 36-39. 
Martineau. " Legislation of Pentateuch." Theol. Rev., \^. 4.74.. 
Marx. Traditio Rabbinoruin Veterriina de Librorum V. T. Or dine 

et Origine Illustrata. Leipz., 1884. 
Marx. See Freund. 
Masius. Josuae Imperatoris Historia Illustrata at que Explicata. 

Antwerp, 1574. 
Maspero. Geschichte der Morgenldnd. V'olker im Alte?'thum. 2te 

Aufl. (Paris, 1875), Leipz., 1877. 
Massey. The Natural Genesis ; or, Second Part of a Book of the 

Begin7migs,t\.Q.. Lond., 1883. New York, 1884. 
Matheson. " Spiritual Devel. of Moses." Good Words ^ xxii. 
"Matters in Dispute concerning the Old Testament." Aiii. Chicrch 

Review, Oct., 1884. 
Matthes. " Mythen in het Oude Test." Theolog. Tijdschrift, 

March-May, 1877. 



44^ The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnicture. 

Matthes. " Het Richterenboek," Tkeol. TiJdschr.,^ov., iZZi. 
Matthes. " The False Prophets of Israel." Mod. Rev., July, 

1884. 
Matthew's Prologues on the Five Books of Moses. Lond., 1551. 
Maurer. Cotn. GraTnfnat.-Hist. Criticus in V. T. Vol. i., con- 
taining Hist. Books, etc., Leipz., 1832-35. 
Maurice. Patriarchs and Lawgivers of the Old Test. Lond., 

1867. 
Maurice. The Doctrine of Sacrifice deduced fro7n Scripttire. 

Lond., 1879. 
Mauritius. Tract. Philol. de Sortitione Veteruin, Hebraeorum 

imprimis. Basel, 1692. 
Maury. Croyances et Legetides de VAntiquite. Paris, 1863. 
Mawer. Priest of War ainong the Hebrews (Deut. xx. i, 2). 

1 741. 
Maybaum. Entwickelung d. Altis. Priest erthums. Breslau, 1880. 
Maybaum. Entwickelung d. Is. Prophetenthums . Berlin, 1883. 
Maybaum. " Zur Pentateuchkritik." Zeitsch. f. Volkerpsychol. 

u. Sprachwissenschaft , 1883, p. 191. 
Mayer. *' Ursprung der Sieben Wochen-Tage." Zeitsch. d. Deut- 

sohen Morg. Gesellschaft , 1883, p. 453. 
Mayer, J. De Temporibus Sanctis et Testis Diebus Hebraeorum. 

Amsterd., 1724. 
Mayer, S. Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener, u. R'omer, etc. 

Leipz., 1862-66. y^ ^ 

Mazade. Sur rOrigine VAge et VEtat Critique d'Pefit. Samar. 

Geneve, 1830. 
McCaul. Examination of Colenso. Lond., 1863-64. 
M'Causland. Adam and the Adamite. 4th ed. Lond., 1877. 
M'Causland. Shinar. Ibid., 1869. 

M'Causland. Builders of Babel. New ed. Ibid., 1^7^. 
McClelland. A Brief Treatise on the Canon, etc., of the Holy 

Scriptures. New York, i860. 
McClintock (and Strong). Cyclopczdia of Bib., Theolog., and 

Ecclesiastical Literature. 10 vols. New York, 1867-82. 
McCosh. Develop7ne?it : What it Can Do, Qtc. New York, 1883. 
Mcllvaine. " Moral Difficulties of the Old Test." Bibliotheca Sac, 

xxxiv. 672. 
Mcllvaine. "The Miracle of Creation." Princeton Rev., May, 

1878. 
McLane. "Speculation and the Bible." Bibliotheca Sac, xviii. 

McLennan. " The Levirate and Polyandry." Fortnightly Rev., 

May, 1877. 
McSweney. " The Bible and Assyr. Discoveries." The Month, 

XX. II. 

Mead. "Examination of Ex. xxxii. 7-11." Journal of Soc for 

Bib. Lit. a?id Exegesis, ]vi\y-T)QC., 1881. 
Mead. " Study of the Monuments." Bibliotheca Sac, xxiv. 
Means. " Narrative of the Creation in Gen." Ibid., xii. p. 83. 



Literature of the Pentateuch. 449 

Means. "Recent Theories of the Origin of Language." Ibid.^ 

xxvii. p. 162. 
Meier. Review of Ghellany's Die Me^ischenopfer d. alt. Hebrder. 

Stud. u. Kritikeii, 1843, iv. 
Meier. " Ueber die Eherne Schlange." Zeller's Theolg. Jahr- 

bucher, 1854, p. 585. 
Meier. Review of Daumer's Der Feiier 21. Molochdiejist . Stud. u. 

Kritiken, 1843. 
Meier. Gesch. d. Poetischeii Nationalliteratiir d. Hebrder. Leipz., 

1856. 
Meier. Uebersetzuiig u. Erkldruug d. Debora-Liedes. Tubing., 

1859. 
Meikle. Edenic Dispensation. Lond., 1850. 

Meiners. Allg. Krit. Geschichte der Religionen. 2 Bde. Hann- 
over, 1806. 
Meiners. Grundriss d. Gesch. alter Religionen. Lemgo, 1785-87. 
Mel. Grimd-Beschreibung der Stiftshutte. Frankfurt, 171 1. 
Menard. Histoire des Israelites d'^apres VExegese Biblique. Paris, 

1883. 
Mendelssohn. Die FYinf Bucher Mose ilbersetzt. Berlin, 1780. 
Menken. " Die eherne Schlange." Schriften, vi., 1858, p. 349. 
Merrill. " The Assyr. Monuments.''' Bibliotheca Sac., xxxii. 320. 
Merx. Die Prophetie d. Joel u. ihre Ausleger (bears on the Pent. 

crit.). Halle, 1879. 
Merx. " Der Werth der Septuaginta fiir die Textkritik des A. T. 

am Ezechiel aufgezeigt." Jahrbucher f. Prot. Theologie, 

1883, p. 65. 
Merx. " Kritische Untersuchungen iiber die Opfergesetze, Lev. 

i.-vii." Zeitsch. f. Wiss. Theologie, 1863, pp. 41, 164. 
Merx. See Tuch. "Nachwort" to his Commentary ed. of 1871. 
Merx. ArcJiiv f. Wiss. Erforschung des Alt. Test. Halle, 1867 

(and part of) 1868. 
Messmer. Geschichte der Offenbarung. Freiburg, 1857. 
Mestral. Coininentaire sur la Genese. Lausanne, 1865. 
Mestral. Commentaire sur f'Exode. Lausanne, 1865. 
Meyer, C. W. Apologie der Geschichtlichen Auffassung d. Histor. 

Bucher d. Alt. Test, besonders des Pent. Sulzbach, 181 1. 
Meyer, E. " Kritik d. Berichte iiber d. Eroberung Palastinas." 

Zeitsch. f. Alttest. Wissenschaft , i., 1881. 
Meyer, E. Geschichte d. Alterthiims. Vol. i. Stuttg., 1884. 
Meyer J . Tractatus de Temporibus Sacris et Testis Diebiis Hebrae- 

ornm. Amsterd., 1698, 1724. 
Mezger. Hist or ia Sacra de Gentis Heb., Ortu, Progress2(, etc. 

Augsb., 1700. 
Michaelis, C. B. Dissert at. de Poenis Capitalibus . . . impriniis 

Hebraeorum. Halle, 1730-49. 
Michaelis, J. D. Einleit. in d. Gottlichen Schriften d. Alt. Bundes. 

Hamb., 1787. 
Michaelis, J. D. Biblia Hebraica. Halle, 1720. 
Michaelis, J. D. Das Mosdische Recht. Frankf., 1770-75. 



45 o The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Michaelis, J. D. Co7n. 07i the Laws of Moses. Lond., 1814. 
Michaelis, J. D. Abhandlungen von de^i Ehegesetzen Mosis. 

Getting., 1755-68. 
Michow. Urgeschichte d. Menschengeschlechts . Eisleben, 1855. 
Micraelius. Syntagma Historiariun Ecclesiae. Stettin, 1630. 
Middleton. Allegor. and Literal Interpret, of Gen. i.-iii. Lond., 

1752. 
Mielziner. Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce. Cincinnati, 

1884. 
Mielziner. Verhdltnisse der Sklaven bei den Atten Hebrdern. 

Leipz., 1859. 
Miller. "The Six Days." Southern Presbyt. Review, Jan., 

1885. 
Milman. The History of the Jews. 3d ed. Lond., 1863. 
Mitchell. " Ezekiel and Leviticus." Heb. Student, i, 2, 1883. 
" Modern Theory of Deuteronomy." Christ. Observer, Ixxvii. 859. 
Moebius. Historia Prophetoe Bilea7Jii. Leipz., 1676. 
Moeller. Ueber die Verschiedenheit des Sty Is der Beiden Hauptur- 

kunden der Genesis. Getting., 1792. 
Moffat. " Antiquity of Genesis." Princeton Rev., xxxiii. 37. 
Moise. " Les Noms des Mois H6breux." L'^Univers Israilite, 

No. 9, Paris, 1881. 
Molchow. "1st der Pentateuch von Mosis verfasst?" Verlags- 

Magazin, Zurich, 1881. 
Moldenhauer. Zeitrechnungijn B. d. Richter. Hamb., 1766. 
Mombert. See Tyndale. 
Mooar. "Favorable References to the Foreign Element in the 

Hebrew History." Bibliotheca Sac . , xxvii. p. 614. 
Moon. Pent, and Jo shiia considered. Lond., 1863. 
Moore, D. Divine Author, of Pentateuch. Lond., 1863. 
Moore, G. The First Man and his Place in Creation. Lond., 

1866. 
Moreau. Exam, of Colenso''s ObJectio7ts. Lond., 1863. 
Morin. Exercitationes Ec. i7t tctrtwtque Sa77iarita7wru77t Pe7ita- 

teuchu?n. Paris, 1631. 
Morin. Prolego7n.ztirAusgabed.LXX. Paris, 1628. 
Morison. Key to Ge7t.-Nu7?ib. Lond., 1847. 

Mortillet. Le Prehistoriqtie Atitiquite de VHo7n7}ie. Paris, 1882. 
Mortillet. "La Religion Pr^historique." Rev. de VHistoire des 

Religio7is. Janv.-F6vr., 1883. 
Mortimer and Newton. " Recent Criticism of the Bible." North 

A771. Review, April, 1884. 
Mosaic Origi7t of the Pentateuch. Lond., 1864. 
Mose ben Nachmann. Ueber d. Vorz'uge d. Mos. Lehre. Ed. by 

Jelinek. Wien, 1872. 
" Moses, Colenso on." Bosto7t Rev., iii. 190. 
"Moses, Character of." Christia7i Observer, li. 733. 
" Moses, Div. Legation of." Christian Obse}^ver, vm. ()i -^ xxviii. 

793 ; Theol. Reposito7y , v. 39, 49, 366. 
Mosler. JudischeSta77i7nverschiede7i1icit. Leipz., 1884. 



Literature of the Pentateuch. 45 1 

Motais. Mo'ise, la Science et rExegese. Paris, 1882. 

Movers. Krit. UntersiccJmng uber die Bibl. Chronik. Bonn, 

1834- 
Movers. " Ueber die Auffindung d. Gesetzbuches unter Josia." 

Zeitsch.f. Philos. u. Kathol. Theologie, 1834-35. Nos. 12, 14. 
Movers. Die Ph'dnizier. 3 Bde. Bonn, 1841-50. 
Mozely. Ruling Ideas in Eai'ly Days. New York, 1879. 
Mudge. Tabernacle of Test, in the Wilderness. LoncL, 1861. 
Miihlau. Liber Ge7i. sine Punctis Exscriptus . Curaverunt F. M. et 

A. Kautzsch. Leipz., 1868. 
Miihlau. See Gesenius, 
Miihlau. Besitzeti wir d. Ur sprunglichen Text d. Heil. Schrift. ? 

Dorpat, 1884. 
Muhlert. D. M'dglichkeit d. g'dttlichen Offenbarung. Leipz., 1832. 
Miiller, C. O. Prolegomena zu e. Wis s. My thologie. Getting., 1828. 
Miiller, J. Urspncng des Pesach-u. Mazzothfestis. Bonn, 1883. 
Miiller, J. G. Wer sind denn die Seiniteji? Basel, i860. 
Miiller, J. G. Die Seniiten in ihrein Verhdltniss zu Chainiten m. 

JapJiiten. Gotha, 1872. 
Miiller, Max. Introd. to the Science of Religion. Lond., 1873. 
Miiller, Max. Origin ajtd Growth of Religion as Illust. by the 

Religions of India. Lond., 1878. 
Munnell. " Genuineness of the Pentateuch." Christ. Quarterly 

Rev., Jan., 1884. 
Miinter. Religion der Karthager . 2te Aufl. Copenh., 1821. 
Muntinghe. Brevis Expositio Critices V. T. Groning., 1827. 
Miirdter. Kurzgefasste Gesch. Bab. u. Assyr. nach d. Keil- 

schriftdenkindlern init besond. Berucksichtigimg d. Alt. Test. 

Stuttg., 1882. 
Murphy. "The Weekly Sabbath." Bibliotheca Sac, xxix. p. 74. 
Murphy. " The Book of Deuteronomy." British and For. Ev. 

Review, ]2in., 1878. 
Murphy. A Critical and Exeget. Coni7nentary on the Book of 

Genesis. Edinb., 1863; Andover, 1866. 
Murphy. Exodus. Edinb. and Andov., 1866. 
Murphy. Leviticus. Ibid., 1872. 

Murray. Rei7iarks 071 Gen. and Exodus. 3d ed. Lond., 1842. 
Mussy. L'' Hygi en e de Mo'ise, &tc. Paris, 1885. 
Nach'tigall. " Fragmente iiber die allmahlige Bildung der den 

Israeliten Heil. Schriften." Henke's Magazi7i f. Religions- 

philosophie, etc., 1794-96. 
Nagel. Dissertat. de Cale7idario Vet. Hebraeorian. Altdorf, 1764. 
Naville. The Store City of Pit horn and Route of the Exodus. 

Lond., 1885. 
Nehringer. Allge7}i. Geschichte d. Alte7i Testa77ie7its. Leipz., 1717. 
"Nemo." Ma7i : Palceolithic, Neolithic, and several other Races 

7iot i7iconsiste7it with Scripture. Dublin, 1876. 
Nesbitt. Science of the Day a7id Ge7iesis. New York, 1882. 
Nestle. " Die Menschliche Lebensdauer u. das Alter des Moses." 

Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft, xxxiii. p. 509. 



452 The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure, 

Nestle. Die Is. Eigennatnen iiach ihrer Religionsgeschichtlichen 

Bedeiitimg. Haarlem, 1876, 
Nestle. " El, Elohim, Eloa." Theolog. Studien ausWurtemberg, 

1882, iv. 
Nestle. " Zur Frage ob ' Jehovah ' Hiphil sein konne." Jahrbb. 

f. Deutsche Tkeol., xxiii. p. 126. 
Neteler. " Die Prophet. Verfasser d. Alt. Test. Biicher." Der 

Katholik, Oct., 1876. 
Neteler. Die Echtheit d. Pentateuchs. Munster, 1867-71. 
Neteler. " Harmonist. Versuch Uber Assyr. u. Bibl. Chronologie." 

Tubing. Qitartalschrift, 1874, iii. 
Neumann. Die Stiftshiltte. Gotha, 1861. 
Neumann. " Die Wolke im Allerheiligsten." Zeitsch. f. Luther. 

Theologie, 1851. 
Neumann. " Die Opfer des Alten Bundes." Deutsche Zeitsch. f. 

Christl. Wissenschaft, 1852-53, 1857. 
Neumann. Sacra V. T. Salidaria. Leipz., 1854. 
Neuville. " L'Ethnologie et le loe chap, de la Gen^se." Rev. des 

Questions Historiques. Avril, 1878. 
Nevin. Notes oit Exodus. Phil., 1873. 

" Newman and Greg on the Old Test." North Brit. Rev., xvi. 1 19.' 
Newton. The Book of Beginnings : a Study of Genesis. New 

York, 1884. 
Newton. See Mortimer. 

Nicolai. De Septdchris Hebraeoruni. Leyden, 1706. 
Nicolai. Diatrib. de Jurainentis Hebraeorum, Graecor., etc. 

Frankf., 1700. 
Nicolas. " Le J^hovisme Mosaique." Nouv. Rev. de Theol., 

livr. 4, 1861. 
Niebuhr. Geschichte Assur''s u. Babels, ^Xo.. Berlin, 1857. 
Niemeyer. Character istik der Bibel. Halle, 1775. 
Niethhammer. Ueber d. Versuch einer Kritik alter Ojfenbarung. 

Jena, 1792. 
Nitzsch. D. Religionsbegriff d. Alten. Hamb., 1832. 
Noack. Die Pharaoneji ini Bibellatide. Leipz., 1870. 
Noack. Der Religiose Geist der Menschheit in seiner Geschicht- 

liche7i Entwickelung. 2 Bde. Leipz., 1850. 
Noldeke. Die Anialekiter. Getting., 1864. 
Noldeke. " Bemerk. liber Hebra. u. Arab. Eigennamen." Zeitsch. 

d. Deut. Mor^enldnd, Gesellschaft, xv. p. 806. 
Noldeke. "Elohim, El." Sitzungsbericht d. K. Pr. Akad. d. 

Wissenschaft, 1882, p. 1175. 
Noldeke . Die Alttest . Liter atur. Leipz . , 1 868 . 
Noldeke. Untersitchimg siir Kritik des A. Test. Kiel, 1869. 
Noldeke. " Ueber den Gottesnamen El." Monatsbericht der K. 

Akad. d. JViss. su Berlin, 1880, p. 760. 
Nork. D. Sonnencultus d. Alten V'olker. Heilbron, 1840. 
Nork. Das Leben Mosis aus Astrognostischeni Standpunkte 

betrachtet. Leipz., 1838. 
Norton. The Pentateuch and its Ret. to Jewish and Christian 

Dispensations. Lond., 1863. 



Literature of the Pentateicch. 453 

Notes on the Book of Deuterono7ny. 2 vols. Lond., 1881-82. 
Nowack. Die Bedeutimg d. Hierony7nus f. d. Alttest. Textkritik. 

Getting., 1875. 
Nowack. Die Assyr .-Babylonischen Keit-Iitschriften u. das Alte 

Testament. Berlin, 1878. 
Nutt. Sketch of Samaritan History, Dogma, and Literature. 

Lond., 1874, 
Obermiiller. Die Entstehung d. Hebr'der. Wien, 1878. 
Ode. Dissertat. de Anno Hebraeorum Jtibilaeo. Utrecht, 1745. 
Oeder. Freye Untersiichnngen neber einige Bucher d. Alt. Test. 

Ed. by Vogel. Halle, 1771. 
Olaster. Com. in Pentateuchnm. Lisbon, 1856-58. 
Olshausen. " Beitrage zur Kritik des Ueberlieferten Textes im B. 

Genesis." Monatsbericht d. Akad. d. Wiss. zii Be?'lin, June, 

1870. 
'* On the Name Jehovah and the Doct. of Ex. iii. 14." British and 

For. Ev. Rev., Jan., 1876. 
"On the Testimony of Language respecting the Unity of the 

Human Race." No7'th A7)i. Rev., July, 1867. 
Oort. " De Aaronieden." Theol. Tijdsch7'ift, 1884, p. 289. 
Oort. Der Ursprn7ig d. Blutbeschnldigung bei de7i Juden. Ley- 
den, 1883. 
Oort. De Pericope Nn77ib. xxii.-xxiv. Leyden, i860. 
Oppert. " Die Bibl. Chronologic nach den Assyr. Keilinschriften." 

Zeitsch. d. Deiitsche7i Morg. Gesellschaft, 1869. 
Oppert. Hist oi re des E77ipires de Chaldee et de V Assyr ie. Paris, 

1865. 
Opwyck. De Legibiis Ebraeor 11771 For e7isibus. Leyden, 1637. 
Oielli. " Der Mosaismus." Die Alttest. Weissagimg,Qic. Wien, 

1882, p. 141. 
" Origin and Significance of Jewish Sacrifices." Bibliotheca Sac, 

xxviii. p. 145. 
Orth. " La Centralisation du Culte de Jehovah." Noicv. Rev. de 

Theol., Dec, 1859. 
Orth. " La Tribu L6vi et la Loi." Ibid., p. 384. 
Orton. "The Bible and Egyptology." Bib. Review, iv. 203. 
Osburn. Egypt a7id its Test, to the Bible. Lond., 1846. 
Osburn. Israel i7i Egypt. 2d ed. Lond., 1856. 
Osgood. "Jesus Christ and the Newer School of Criticism." 

Baptist Quarterly, 1883, p. 88. 
Osgood. " Prehistoric Commerce in Israel." Bapt. Quart. Rev., 

Apr., 1882. 
Osgood. " History and Methods of Modern Biblical Criticism." 

Proceedi7igs of Sec. Antn77i. Baptist Co7ifere7ice. Boston, 1883. 
Osiander. C0771. in Pentateiichiu7i. Tubing., 1675 ff. 
Osiander. Co7n77te7itarins i7i Jiid. Tubing. , 1682. 
Osiander. C0771. i7i Josua7n. Ibid., 1681. 
Outram. DeSacrificiis. Amsterd., 1678. 
Owen. A Short Bitrod. to Heb. Criticis7n. Lond., 1774. 
Owen. Divine Origi7ial, etc., of the Scriptures. Oxford, 1659. 



454 '^^^ Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure, 

Page. Pretensions of Bp. Colenso Considered. Lond., 1863. 
Pahle. Gesch. d. Oriental. Alterthums . Oldenburg, 1864. 
Paine. The Taberiiacle, Temple, etc. Boston, 1861. 
Palfrey. The Jewish Scriptures and Antiq. Lond., 1841, 1848. 
Palmer, E. H. History of the Jewish Nation. Lond., 1874. 
Palmer, E. H. The I)esert and the Exodus. 2 vols. Lond., 

1871 ; New York, 1872. 
Palmer, E. H. The Negeb. Lond., 1871. 
Palmer, G. The Migratioit fro7n Shinar. Lond., 1880. 
Palmer, H. S. Ajicient History frojn the Monuments. Lond., 

1878. 
Palmer, W. Sacred and Egypt. Chronol. Harmojiized. 2 vols. 

Lond., 1861. 
Pareau. Antiq. Hebraica breviter Descripta. Utrecht, 1817. 
Park. " The Divine Institution of Sacrifice." Bibliotheca Sac, 

Jan., 1876. 
Parker, F. Replies to Bp. of NataVs Pentateuch. Lond., 1864. 
Parker, J. The People's Bible. Vol. i.. Genesis; vol. ii.. Exodus. 

Lond., 1885. 
Parker, J. " The Second Book of Moses." Expositor, Apr., 

1885, p. 305. 
Parkes. " Compar. Philol. as indicating the Antiq. of Man." 

Quart. Jour, of Scie7tce, Apr., 1866. 
Parsons. See Holmes. 
Parvish. Inquiry into the Jewish and Christian Revelation. 

Lond., 1739. 
Pastore t . Histoire de la Legislation . Paris , 1 8 1 7 . 
Patrick, Lowth, etc. Com. oit the Bible. 4 vols. Lond., 1849. 
Patrick. Com. upon the Second Book of Moses. Lond., 1697. 
Patrick. Coin, upon the Third Book of Moses. Lond., 1698. 
Pattison. Antiquity of Man. Lond., 1863. 
Patton. " Dogmatic Aspect of Pentateuchal Criticism." Presbyt. 

Rev., 1883, p. 341. 
Paul. Analysis and Critical Inter, of Genesis. Edinb., 1852. 
Paulus. " Ueber die Anlage u. den zweck des Ersten u. Zweiten 

Fragments der altesten Mos. Menschengeschichte." Neues 

Repertor.f. Bibl. u. Morg. Litteratur, Th. 2, p. 209. 
Paulus. D. Ur sprung d. Althebra. Litteratur durch SamiceVs 

Geist u. seinen Prophetenschulen . Heidelb., 1822. 
Peabody. " Char, and Institutions of Moses." Christ. Exaininer, 

xxi. I. 
Peabody. " Bearing of Mod. Scientific Theories on the Funda- 
mental Truths of Christianity." Bibliotheca Sac, xxi. p. 710. 
Penrose. Lectures on the Pentateuch. Lond., 1845. 
" Pent, and Book of Joshua Criticised." Ch. Remetnbrancer, xlv. 

225, 484. 
Pentateuchism Analytically Treated. Vol. i., Genesis. Lond., 

i860. 
Pentateuchus, Hebr., Chald., Arab., Pers., cum Com. Jarchi. 

Constantinople, 1546. 



LiterattLve of tJie Pentateuch. 455 

Pefitateiichtis , aim Targ. ac Comin. Jarchi. Bolog., 1490. 
Pejitateiichus Hebraio-Chaldaio-Persicus-Arabictis. 1 550. 
Pejitateuchus Hebraiacs Hispanicus et Barbaro-Graecus . Con- 
stant., 1548. 
Petermann. Pentateicchiis Samaritamis/\. Goji^^i^. Berlin, 1872. 
Petermann. De Diiabiis Pent. Paraphras. Chaldaicis. Ibid., i2>2(). 
Peyr^re. Sy sterna Theologiciim ex Prceadamitartwi Hypothesi. 

Holland, 1655. 
PfafF. " Gegenwart. Stand d. Frage nach dem Ursprung d. Men- 

schengeschlechts." Zeitsch. f. d. ges. Luther. Theologie, etc., 

1^65, p. 401. 
PfafF. D. Alter tt. Ursprung d. Mensche7tgeschlechts . Frankf., 

1878. 
Pfaff. Schopfmigsgeschichte. 2te Aufl. Frankfurt, 1877. 
Pfaff. Die Neuesten Theoj'ieen atif dei7i Gebiete d. Schopfiings- 

geschichte. Ibid., 1868. 
Pfeifer. Critica Sacra. Dresden, 1680; Altdorf, 175 1. 
'•Pharaoh of Joseph." Proceedings of Soc. of Bib. ArchcBol. ,iZ?>o-?>i . 
Philippi. "1st 'Jehovah' Accadisch-Sumerischen Ursprungs?" 

Zeitsch.f. Volker psychologic, 1883. 
Philippi. "Zur Eintheilung d. Dekalogs." Zeitsch. f. Kirch. 

Wiss. n, Kirchliches Leben, 1881, Hefte 9, 10. 
Philippson. D. Etitwickelung d. Relig. Ideen iin Judenthtwie. 

Leipz., 1847. 
Philo. De Vita Mosis. Prag, 1838. See, also, ed. of his works. 
Pianciani. Erl'dnter^ingen znr Mos. Schopfnngs-Geschichte. Re- 

gensb., 1853. 
Pick. "A Collection of Various Readings of the Samar-Pent." 

Bibliotheca Sac, i?>j6-j?>. 
Pickering. Hist, of Races of Man. Lond., 1850. 
Pioger. ECEuvre de six Jonrs, tic. Paris, 1880. 
Piscator. Comm. in Deuieronojnitcjn. Herborn, 161 5. 
Planck. " Der Ursprung des Mosaismus." Zeller's Tilbing. Theo- 

log. Jahrbucher, 1845. 
Planck. Die Genesis d. Jndeiithimis . Ulm, 1843. 
Plumptre. " Assyrian and Babylonian Inscriptions in their Bear- 
ing on the Old Testament.'" Expositor, March, April, Oct., 

1881. 
Pococke. Porta Mosis. See ed. of his works by Twells. 2 Bde. 

Lond., 1740. 
Pontas. Scriptnra S. nbiqice sibi Constans. This is the title of 

Collet's ed. of a work by Pontas published in Paris, 1730. 

It discusses the supposed contradictions of the Pentateuch. 
Pool. An7iotations on the Whole Bible. 3 vols. New York, 1880. 
Poole. " Hebrew Ethics in Evidence of the Date of Heb. Docu- 
ments." Contenip. Review, Apr., 1881. 
Poole. Genesis of the Earth and Man. Lond., i860. 
Poole. Chro7tol. of Aftcient Egypt. Lond., 185 1. 
Poole. " Ancient Egypt in its Comparative Relations." Contemp. 

Review, 3d art., Aug., 1881. 



45 6 The PentateitcJi: Its Origin a7td Structure. 

Poncet. Nouv. Eclaircisseinents sur VOrigine de la Pent. Samar- 

itains. Paris, 1760. 
Pond. " Author of Genesis.'" Methodist Quai't., xxiii. 601. 
Popper. D. Ursprung d. Monotheis7mis . Berlin, 1879. 
Popper. D. Bibl. Bericht liber die Stiftshutte. Leipz., 1862. 
Portal. Co7npar. of Egyptian with Hebrew Symbols. New York, 

1875. 
Porter. The Pe7itateicch and the Gospels. Lond., 1865. 
Pott. Mytholog. Vorstelliingen v. Ur sprung der V'olker u. Spra- 

chen. Lemgo, 1863. 
Pott. Moses u. David keine Geologe7i. Berlin, 1799. 
Pott. Co77i77ie7itatio de A7itiq. Docimiento, quod extat Ge7i. it. et Hi. 

Helmstadt, 1789. 2d ed., 1796. 
Potwin. " Destructive Analysis in Theology." Bibliotheca Sac, 

xxix. p. 419. 
Pratt. The Ge7iealogy of the Creatio7i. Lond., 1861. 
" Prehistoric Man." Church Quart. Review, July, 1881. 
Preiss. " D. Ursprung des Jehovakultus." Zeitschrift f. Wiss. 

Theologie, 1881, p. 210. 
Pressel. " Laubhiittenfest.'" Yi^xzo^'s, Reiil-Encyk. iste Aufl. 
Pressel. Geographie ti. Geschichte der Urzeit. Nordlingen, 1883. 
Pressens^. E0rigi7ie de la Morale et de la Religio7i. Paris, 1883. 
Priestley. T7istitutes of Mos. aiid of the Hindoos. Lond., 1800. 
Priestly. " Moses, Inspiration of." Theol. Repository , iv. 27, 123. 
" Primeval Hist, of the Old Test." Qua7't. Review, Hi. 496. 
Pritchard. Vi7idiciae Mosaicae. Lond., 1866. 
Proctor. " Origin of the Week." Co7ite77ip. Review, June, 1879. 
Prout. " Recent Theories on the Pentateuch." British Quart. 

Rev., Jan., 1884. 
Pustkuchen. Urgeschichte d. Menschheit. Lemgo, 1823. 
Pye. Moses a7id Boli7igbroke. Lond., 1766. 
Pye. The Moral System of Moses. Lond., 1770. 
Quarry. Ge7iesis and its Authorship. Lond., 1873. 
Rae. " Recent Spec, on Prim. Religion." Co7ite77ip. Rev., Oct., 

1880. 
Ragg. Accord of Revelation with Science. Lond., 1856. 
Rainy. The Bible and Criticis7n. Lond., 1878. 
Ranke, F. H. U7ttersuchu7ig 'uber den Pentateuch aus de77t Gebiete 

d. H'oheren Kritik. Erlangen, 1834-40, 
Ranke, L. v. Universal History (Eng. trans.). New York, 1884. 
Rashi. In Pe7itateuchum Co7n. Ed. by Berliner. Berlin, 1866. 
Rask. Die Aelteste Hebr. Zeitrech7iu7ig bis Moses. Copenh., 1828. 
Raska. Die Chro7iol. d. Bibel i//i Ei7iklafige 7/iit d. Zeitrech/iic/ig d. 

Aegypter u. Assyrer. Wien, 1878. 
Rau. Dissertat. de Nube Gloriosa super Arca77t Foederis. Utrecht, 

1760. 
Rauber. Urgeschichte des Me7ischen. 2 Bde. Leipz., 1884. 
Raumer, G. W. D. Zug d. Israelite n aus Aegypte7i 7iach Kanaan. 

Leipz., 1837. 
Raumer, R. v. D. U7've7'wa7idtschaft d. Se7/iit. u. l7ido-ger77ian. 

Sprachen. Frankf., 1876. 



Literattcre of the Pentateuch. 457 

Rawlinson. " The Pentateuch." Aids to Faith, hond.., 1Z62. 
Rawlinson. Antiquity of Man. Lond., 1883. Cf. Journal of 

Christian Philos., 1883, p. 339. 
Rawlinson. The Religions of the Ancient World. Lond., 1882; 

New York, 1883. 
Rawlinson. History of A^iciejit Egypt. 2 vols. Lond., 188 1< 
Rawlinson. Egypt and Babylon, from Sacred and Profane 

Sources. New York, 1885. 
Rawlinson. Hist. Evidences of the Triith of the Scripture Records. 

Lond., 1859; Boston, i860. 
Rawlinson. Monarchies of the Ancient World. 2d ed. 3 vols. 

New York, 1871. 
Rawlinson. Origin of Nations. Lond., 1877; New York, 1881. 
Recent Inquiries in Theol. by Eminent Eng. Churchmen [better 

known as Essays and Reviews']. 4th Am. from 2d Lond. ed., 

1862. 
" Recent Translations of the Pentateuch." Church Quart. Review, 

1881. 
Reckendorf. Das Leben Mosis. Leipz., 1868. 
Records of the Past. Eng. Trans, of the Egyptian and Assyr. 

Monuments. 12 vols. Lond., Bagster. 
Redslob, A. M. De Hebrczis Obstetricantibus Commentatio. 

Leipz., 1835. 
Redslob, G. M. Die Bibl. Angaben ilber die Stiftung u. Grujid d. 

Paschafeier. Hamb., 1856. 
Redslob, G. M. Leviratsehe. Leipz., 1836. 
Redslob, G. M. Die A. T. JVajuen der Bev'dlkeruug d. wirklichen 

u. idealen Tsraeliten-Staates. Hamb., 1846. 
Redslob, G. M. DerBegriff d. Nabi. Leipz., 1839. 
Redslob, G. M. Der Sch'dpfungsapolog (Gen. ii. 4-iii. 24). 

Strassb., 1846. 
Regensburg. Die Chronol. d. Genesis im Einklang jnit der Pro- 

fanen. Mainz, 1881. 
Reinhard, J. P. Einleitu7tg zu d. Kirchengeschichte d. A. Bundes. 

Erlang., 1751. 
Reinhard, P. C. Abriss einer Geschichte d. E7itstehung u. Ausbil- 

dicjigd. Religi'osen Ideen. Jena, 1794. 
Reinisch, L. Ursprung u. Entwickelung d. Aegypt. Priester- 

thums, etc. Wien, 1878. 
Reinisch, S. L. " Zur Chronol. d. Alten Aegypter." Zeitsch. d. 

Deutsch. Mo7g. Gesellschaft, 1861. 
Reinke. Z. Erkldrung d. Alten Test. 5 Bde. Munster, 1863 flf. 
Reinke. Die Weissagujig Jacobs, etc. Munster, 1849. 
Reinke. Die Sch'dpfung d. Welt. Munster, 1859. 
Reland. Antiq. Sacrae Veterum Hebraeorum. Utrecht, 171 1. 
Reland. Paldstina ex Monu?nentis Veteribus Illustrata. Niinrb., 

1716.^ 
Renan. Etudes dHistoire Religieuse. Paris, 1863. 
Renan. " Les Noms ^Th^ophoses Apocopes dans les Langues 

Sem." Rev. des Etudes, Oct., D6c., 1882. 



45 8 TJie Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Renan. " La Tendance des Peuples S6mitiques au Monoth^isme." 

Jourfial As., 1859, pp. 214, 417. 
Renan. Das Judenthu?n vom Gesichtspunkte der Rasse u. der 

Religion. Vortrag. Basel, 1883. 
Renard et Lacour. " De la Manne du Desert ou Manne des H6- 

breux." Critique Historique, etc., Alger, 1881. 
Rendell. Antediliiv. History. Lond., 1851. 
Rendell. Postdiluv. History. Ibid., 1855. 

Renouf. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion, as illus- 
trated by the Relig. of Ancient Egypt. Hibbert Lectures. 

Lond., 1880. 
Repertoriu7n d. Exegese d. Alt. Test. Th. i.. Genesis. Berlin, 1855. 
Reubelt " Bible and Tradition.'" Christ. Quarterly, vii. 106. 
Reusch. Lehrb. d. Einleitung in das Alte Testa7nent. 4te Aufl. 

Freiburg, 1870. 
Reusch. Bibelu. Natur. 4te Aufl. Ibid., iZ'jd. 
Reuss. Die Geschichte d. Heil. Schrifteji d. Alien Testaments. 

Braunschweig, 2te Halfte, 1881, 
Reuss. " Judenthum." Ersch u. Gruber's £';2rF^/^/^^z>. 
Reuss. Les Prophetes. Paris, 1879. 
Reuss. La Bible, Traduction Nouvelle avec Introductio7is et Cotn- 

inentaires. Paris, 1875 ff- (Part iii., LHistoire Saint e et 

la Loi, Pent, et Jos., 2 vols., 1879). 
R^ville. Les Religions des Peuples non Civilises. Paris, 1882. 
Reville. Prolegojnhies de VHistoire des Religiojis. Paris, 1881. 
Rialle. La Mythologie Coniparee. Paris, 1878. 
Riant. Inventio7i de la Sepulture des Patriarches . . . a Hebron. 

Genes, 1883. 
Richards. " The Deluge of Ogyges and Deucalion." Bibliotheca 

Sac, iii. pp. 347, 699. 
Richers. Die Sch'dpftmgs-Paradieses 21. S'thidfluthgeschichte [Gen. 

i.-ix.] Erkldrt. Leipz., 1854. 
Riehm. " D. Schuldopfer." Stud. u. Kritiken, 1854. 
Riehm. Das Erste Buch Mose [a revised trans, and explan. re- 
marks]. Halle, 1873. 
Riehm. De Natur a et Natione Sy77ibol. Cheruboru77i. Basel, 1864. 
Riehm. " D. Begriff der Siihne im Alt. Test." Stud. u. Kritike7i, 

1877. 
Riehm. " Bilderdienst." Handworterb. d. Bibl. Alterttmis . 
Riehm. Ha7tdwdrterb. d. Bibl. Altertu77is. Herausg. unter Mit- 

wirkung G. Baur, Beyschlag, Delitzsch, Ebers, u. A. Leipz., 

1884. 
Riehm. " Die so-genannte Grundschrift des Pentateuchs." Stud. 

u. Kritike7i, 1872. 
Riehm. Review of Grafs Die Geschichtliche7i B'ucher. Ibid., 1868. 
Riehm. Der Bibl. Sch'dpftmgsbericht. Halle, 188 1. 
Riehm. D. Gesetzgebiuig Mosis i7/i Lande Moab. Gotha, 1854. 
Riggenbach. Die Mos. Stiftshutte. 2te Aufl., Basel, 1867. 
Rinck. "D. Schuldopfer." Stud. u. Kritiken (with a " Nach- 

trag" by Riehm), 1855, p. 369. 



Literattcre of the Pentateuch. 459 



-7r> 



Rinck. Eifiheit d. Mas. Schopfmigsbericht . Heidelb., i! 

Rioult. " L'Arch^ol. Pr6historique,"etc. Rev. d. Questions Hist., 
Jan., 1882. 

Rivet. Comment, in Libr. 2 Mosis, qni Exodus inscribitiir . Ley- 
den, 1634. 

Rivet. Introdnctio Generalis ad Script. Sac. V. et IV. Test. Ley- 
den, 1627. 

Robbins. " Song of Deborah." Bibliotheca Sac, xii. p. 597. 

Robert. Pentateiichi Versio Latina Antiqnissima e Cod. Lugd. 
Paris, 1880. 

Roberts. Orieiital III. of the Sacj^ed Scriptures. Lond., 1835. 

Robertson, F. W. Notes on Genesis. Lond., 1877. 

Robertson, J. Clavis Pentatenchi. Edinb., 1770. 

Robinson. Vindication of Mos. System of Creation. Lond., 
1709. 

Roderich. Die Volkertaf el des Moses. Priim, 1880. 

Rodier. Antigtiite des Races Humaines. Paris, 1862. 

Rogers, B. B. Mosaic Records. 2d ed. Lond., 1865. 

Rogers, H. Vindication of Colenso. Edinb., 1863. 

Romaine. Div. Legation of Moses Demonstrated. Lond., 1747. 

Roringer. De Miitati Hebraeonim Ingenii post Red. e Captiv. 
Babyl. Ratiojte et Cansis. Leyden, 1820. 

Rosch. " Zeitrechnung." 'SA^xzo^^ Re'dl-Encyk. iste Aufl. 

Rosenmliller. Scholia in Veins Testamentiim. [VoL i. treats of 
the Pent.] Leipz., 1788 if. 

Rosenmliller. Pentatenchns Annotatione Perpet. Tllustratns. 
Leipz., iZii-i^. 

Rosenmliller. De Versione Pent. Persica. Leipz., 18 13. 

Rosenmliller. Handb. f. d. Liter atiir d. Bibl. Kritik u. Exegese. 
4 Bde. Gotting., 1798-1800. 

Rosenmliller. Handb. d. Bibl. Alterth'iuner. 4 Bde. Leipz., 
1823-31. 

Rosenstock. Heidnische Mantik u. Is. Prophetic. Wolfenblittel, 
1880. 

Rosin. Der Pentateuch-Co77imentar d. R. Samuel ben Meir, nach 
Handschriften u. Druckwerken berichtigt u. m. krit. Erkld- 
rungen Herausgegeben. Breslau, 1881. 

Roskoff. Die Siinsonsage. Leipz., i860. 

Roskoff. Die Hebr. Alterthihner in Briefen. Wien, 1857. 

Roskoff. D. Religionswesen d. Rohesten Naturvolker . Leipz., 
1880. 

Rosseau. Ueber Naturl. u. Geoffenbarte Religion. Neustrel., 
1796. 

Rubinsohn. " Origin and Structure of the Bible."" Christ. Exa?n- 
iner, liv. 165. 

Rule. Oriental Records Confirmatory of the Old and New Testa- 
ments. Lond., without date; New York, 1877. 

Rundquist. Curae Philol. Exeg. i7t Cant. Mos. Upsala, 1834. 

Rutherford. Exa7n. of Kemiicotfs Defence of Samar. Pent, 
Camb., 1 761. 



460 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Stnictiire. 

Ryssel. De Elohistae P.ejitateuchici Sermone. Leipz., 1874. 
Saalschlitz. Arch'dologie der Hebrae?'. Konigsb., 1855-56. 
Saalschlitz. Das Mosaische Recht. 2te Aufl., Berlin, 1853. 
Saalschlitz, Forschungen ivi Gebiete d. Hebrdisch-Aegypt . Archd- 

ologie. Konigsb., 1838. 
Saalschlitz. Hauptprincipieii d. Is. Gottesdiejist. Konigsb., 1845. 
Sack, J. Die Religion Altisraels. Leipz., 1885. 
Sack, K. H. Lieder d. Hist. Bucher d. A. T. Barmen, 1864. 
Salvador. Loi de Mo'ise. Paris, 1822. 
Salvador. Histoire des Institutions de Mo'ise et du Peuple Hebreu. 

Paris, 1828; (in German) Hamb., 1836. 
Sanday. " Nature and Devel. of Monotheism in Israel." Theolog. 

Review, Oct., 1876. 
Sandbiichler. Vertheid. d. G'dttlichJzeit d. Mos. Gesetzes, etc. 

Sulzb., 1787-97. 
Sandys. In the Beginning. Lond., 1879. 
Sargent. A Compend. of Bib. Criticism. Lond., i860. 
Sayce. See Budge. 

Sayce. Babylonian Liter atitre. Lond., 1879. 
Sayce. Fresh Light frojn the Ajicient Monmnents . Lond. : The 

Religious Tract Soc. 
Sayce. "Origin of the Name 'Jehovah.'" Mod. Review, Oct., 

1882. 
Sayce. "The Gods of Canaan." Cojztemp. Review, Sept., 1883. 
Sayce. The Anciejit E77ipires of the East. New York, 1884. 
Schafer. Die Relig. Alterthumer der Bibel. Mlinster, 1878. 
Schaffer. Das Diliivinin in der Bibel. Frankf., 1884. 
Schelling. Antiqidssijni de Prima Malomm Hitm. Origitie, etc. 

[Gen. iii. explicat.] Tiibing., 1792. 
Schenkel. Bibel- Lexiko7i. Leipz., 1868-75. 
Schenkel. " Moses," " Reinigkeit." Bibel-Lex. 
Scherer. La Critique et la Loi. Paris, 1850. 
Scherer. " Le Monoth^isme S^metique." Nouv. Rev. de Thiol., 

iv., 1859. 
Scheuchzer. " Ueber d. Zeit d. Zweiten Einfalls d. Hyksos in 

yEgypten." Zeitsch. d. Dent. Morgenldnd. Gesellschaft , xiv. 

p. 640. 
Scheuchzer. " Zur Geschichte v. Assur u. Babel. Ethnograph- 

isches." Ibid., xvi. p. 482. 
Schickard. Jus Regium Hebraeorum. Ed. by Carpzov. Leipz., 

1764. 
Schiller. " D. Stern aus Jacob." Beweis d. Glaubens, Jan., 1884. 
Schlegel. D. Geist d. Religiositdt alter Zeiten 21. V'dlker. 2 Bde. 

Hannov., 1819. 
Schleicher. Bedeutung d. Sprache f. d. Naturgeschichte d. Me7i- 

schen. Weimar, 1865. 
Schleiden. " D. Einheit d. Menschengeschlechts." Wester- 

mann's ///. Monatsch., Apr., i860. 
Schleiden. " Die Pluralitat d. Menschenarten," Ausland, No. 

10, i860. Cf., also, No. 17. 



Literature of the Pentateuch. 461 

Schlichter. De Lychiiitcho Sacro ejiisque Mysterio. Halle, 1740. 
Schlichter. De Paiiibus Facierum Eorumqiie Mysterio. Ibid., 

Schlottmann. " Astarte,"" " Aschera," " Gotzendienst,*' Riehm's 
Handworterb. d. Bibl. Altertunis. 

Schmeidler. Der Untergang d. Reiches Juda. Breslau, 1831. 

Schmid, C. F. Historia Aiitiqua, etc. Leipz., 1775. 

Schmid, C. F. Origo Librr. Caiwiiicoriim V. T. Wittenberg, 
1772. 

Schmid, R. "Die durch Darwin angeregte Entwickelungsfrage." 
St2(d. n. Kritiken, 1875, p. 7. 

Schmidt, J. E. C. Ei7is d. Aeltesteii 21. Sch'dnsteii Idyllen des 
Morgerdandes [i Mos. xlix.]. Giessen, 1793. 

Schmidt, K. L. C. " Ueber die Entstehung u. das Alter der Gen- 
esis." Bibliothek f. Kritik ti. Exegese, 1802. 

Schmidt, O. Das Opfer in d. Jahve-Religion n. im Polytheismus . 
Halle, 1877. 

Schmidt, S. Super Mosis Libriun Primuni Annotationes . Ar- 
gent., 1697. 

Schmidt, S. Conwiejitar. itt Libr. Jttdiciun. Strassb., 1706. 

Schnell. Das Israelii. Recht. Basel, 1853. 

Schodde. " Ezra's Relation to the Law." New York Independ- 
ent, April 5, 1883. 

Schodde. "Histor. Character of Genesis." Lutheran Quart., 

Schodde. " Old Test. Criticism in the Am. Church." Old Test. 

Student, June, 1884. 
Schoebel. Demonstratioji de V Atdhenticite de la Genese. Paris, 

1873- 
Schoebel. Demonstration de V Authenticite de VExode. Paris, 

1871. 
Schoebel. Demonstration de V Authenticitt Mosdique du Levitique 

et des No7nbres. Paris, 1869. 
Schoebel. DeVUniversalite dit Deluge. Paris, 1858-60. 
Schoebel. Le Mdise Historique et la Redaction Mosdique du Penta- 

teuque. Paris, 1875. 
Schoebel. Les Stations d Israel dajis le Desert . Paris, 1859. 
Schoebel. Memoir e sur les six Jours ou Epoqites de la Genise. 

Paris, 1859. 
Schoebel. Memoir e sur le Monotheisme primitif attribue par M. 

E. Renan a la seide Race Semitique. Paris, i860. 
Schoebel. Refutation de quelques Objections C07Ure les Recits de la 

Genese. Paris, 1862. 
Schoebel. Satan et la Chute de V Homme. Paris, 1859. 
Scholl. "Ueber die Opferidee der Alten, insbesond., der Juden " 

Studien d. Ev. Geistlichkeit Wurtembergs , iv., Hefte 1-3. 
Scholz, A. Die ^gyptologie ti. d. Bucher Mosis. Wiirzburg, 

1878. 
Scholz, A. Die Keilschrift-Urkunden u. d. Genesis. Wiirzburg, 

1877. 



462 The PentateticJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

Scholz, F, P. De Origine Noutinis '* yahve.'''' Breslau, 1857. 
Scholz, J. M. A. Einleitimg in die Heil. Schrift. 3 Bde. Koln, 

1844-48. 
Scholz, J. M. A. Handb. d. Bibl. Archaologie. Bonn, 1834. 
Scholz, P. Die heil. Alterthumer d. Volkes Is. Regensb., 1868. 
Scholz, P. Gotzendienst u. Zauberwesen bei den alien Hebrdern. 

Regensb., 1877. 
Schrader. " Der Babylon. Ursprung d. Siebentagigen Woche." 

Stud. u. Kritiizen, 1874. 
Schrader. " Gelubde,'' " Jahve." SchenkePs ^Z(^^/-Z^;ir. 
Schrader. " Ueber Sinn u. Zusammenhang d. Stiickes v. den 

Sohnen Gottes." Stud, zur Kritik. ic. Erkldrnng d. Bibl. 

Urgeschichte, Zurich, 1863, p. 61. 
Schrader. "Die Abstammung der Chaldaer u. die Ursitzen d. 

Semiten." Zeitsch. d. Deid. MorgenVdnd. Gesellschaft, 1873, 

P- 397- 
Schrader. Die Keihnschriften ti. das Alte Testament. 2te Aufl., 

Giessen, 1883. 
Schrader. " Semitismus u. Babylonismus.'" Jahrbucher f. Prot. 

Theologie, 1875. 
Schrader. Sprachvergteichimg n. Urgeschichte. Jena, 1883. 
Schrader. Zur Frage nach deni Ursprung d. Alt baby Ion. Odtur. 

Berlin, 1884. 
Schrader. "Zur Kritik. d. Bibl.-Assyr. Chronologic." Zeitsch. d. 

Deut. MorgenVdnd. Gesellschaft, xxv. p. 449. 
Schrank. Com. Liter alls iii Genesin. Solisb., 1835. 
Schroeder. See Theotogisch-Hoiitilet . Bibelwerk. 
Schroeder. Das Erste B. Mose Ausgelegt. Berlin, 1844-45. 
Schroring. " Zur Erklarung der Genesis." Zeitschrift f. Wiss. 

Theologie, 1880, p. 385. 
Schroter. " Bar-hebraus' Scholien zu Gen. 49, 50; Ex. 14, 15; 

Dt. 32-34, u. Jud. 5.'" Zeitsch. d. Deutschen Morgenl. Gesell- 

schaft, Bd. xxiv. pp. 506, 518, 550. 
Schulthess. Das Paradies, eic. Leipz., 1821. 
Schultz, F. W. Das Deuteronoinium Erkldrt. Berlin, 1859. 
Schultz, F. W. "Die Innere Bedeutung der A. T. Feste." 

Deutsche Zeitsch. f. Christ I. Wiss., 1859. 
Schultz, F. W. Die Sch'dpfungsgeschichte nach N'aturwissenschaft 

u. Bibel. Gotha, 1865. 
Schultz, F. W. " Ephod." Wo.'czo^ ^ Redl-Encyk. 2te Aufl. 
Schultze, F. Der Fetischismus. Leipz., 1871. 
Schultze, M. Geschichte d. Altebrdischen Literatur. Thorn, 1870. 
Schultze, M. Handb. d. Ebrd. Mythologie. Nordhausen, 1876. 
Schultze, M. Moses u. die Zehnwort-Gesetze d. Pentateuchs. 

Berlin, 1875. 
Schulz, J. C. F. Scholia in V. T. (continued by G. Lr. Bauer). 

Niirnb., 1789-98. 
Schulz, J. H. Philos. u. Krit. Untersuchuiigen . . . iiber d. Mos. 

Religion. Leipz., 1785. 
Schulze. Compendium ArchcEologiae Hebr. Dresden, 1793. 



Literature of the PentatetLch. 463 

Schumann, A. Prakt. Emleitung in d. B'ucher d. A, ti. A^. Testa- 
ments. Berlin, 1848. 
Schumann, G. A. Genesis Hebraice et Greece ciun Annotatione 

Perpetna. Lips., 1829. 
Schuster. Aelteste Sagen der Bibel. LUneburg, 1804. 
Schiitz. " L'Esprit de Moise." Mhnoires deVAcad. de Stanislaus , 

i860, p. 301. 
Scott. Moses and the Pentateuch. Lond., 1863. 
Scott. Principles of N. T. Quotations . . . applied to Bib. Grit. 

and espec. to the Gospels and the Pentateuch. Edinb., 1877. 
" Scripture Evolution." Amer. Church Rev., Oct., 1884. 
Seinicke. Geschichte d. Volkes Is. Vol. i. Getting., 1876. 
Seisenberger. D. Bibl. Schopfungsbej'icht au.sgelegt. Freising, 

1881. 
Selden. De Anno Civ. et Calendario. Lond., 1644. 
Selden. De Successionibus in Bona Defuncti ad Leges Ebraeoruin. 

Lond., 1631. 
Selden. De Success, in Pontificatiivi Ebr. Lond., 1636. 
Selden. De Synhedriis et Praefecturis Jurid. Vet. Hebr. 3 vols. 

Lond., 1650. 
Selden. Uxor Hebr. Absolvens Nuptias et Divartia Vet. Hebr. 

Wittenberg, 1712. 
Selnecker. I71 Genesin Commejitaritcs. Lips., 1569. 
Semler. Abhandhuigv. Freier Untersuchung des Kations. Halle, 

1771-75. 
Semler. Apparatus ad Liber aleifi V. T. Interpretattonem. Halle, 

1773- 
Serpilius. Lebensbeschreibungen d. Bibl. Scribe?iten. Leipz., 1708. 
Sewall. "The Humaneness of the Mosaic Code." Bibliotheca 

Sac, xix. p. 368. 
Se}^rarth. Grundsdtze d. Mythologie u. d. alien Religionsge- 

schichte. Leipz., 1843. 
Sharpe. Hebrew Inscriptions from the Valleys between Egypt and 

Mount Sinai. Lond., 1877. 
Sharpe. History of Egypt from the Earliest Times. Lond., 1876. 
Sharpe. Histo7y of the Heb. Nation and its Literature. 4th ed. 

Lond., 1882. 
Shedd. "The Two Views of the Old Testament." New York 

Observer, Jan. 11, 1883. 
Sherer. Defence of Colenso. Lond., 1863. 
Siegfried. Spinoza als Kritiker ?/. Ausleger d. Alt. Test. Berlin, 

1867. 
Sifra. Commentar zu Lev. aus d. Anfaiige d. 3 Jahrhunderts. 

Ed. by Schlossberg. Berlin, 1863. 
Sigonius. De Republica Hebraeoriim. Frankf., 1855, 
Sillem. D. Alte Test, im Lichte d. Assyr. Forschzmgen, etc. 

Hamb., 1877. 
Sime. Deuteronomy the People'' s Book. Lond., 1877. 
Sime, The Kingdom of All Israel. Lond., 1883. 
Simon, D. W. "Authority of the Bible." Brit. (2uart. Review, 

Oct., 1864, p. 364. 



464 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Str::c":nr. 

Simon, R. Histoire Critique dii Vieux Testament. Paris, 1678. 
Simon, R. Reponse an Livre Intitule Sentiinens, etc., par le 

Prieur de Bolleville. Rotterdam, 1686. 
Simpson. Typical Character of the Tabernacle. Edinb., 1852. 
Singer. Onkelos u. das Verhdltniss seines Targums zur Halacha. 

Frankf., 1881. 
Smend. Der Prophet Ezechiel Erkldrt. {Ku.rzgef. Exeget. Handb.^ 

2te. Aufl.), Leipz,, 1880. 
Smend. Die Listen d. Bucher Esra u. NeJt. zusaimneitgestellt u. 

Untersucht. Programm, Basel, 1881. 
Smend. Moses apud Prophetas. Halle, 1875. 
Smend. " Ueber die Genesis d. Judenthums." Zeitsch. f. Alttest. 

Wisseiischaft, 1882, p. 94. 
Smend. " Ueber die von den Propheten des achten Jahrhunderts 

Vorausgesetzte Entwickelungsstufe der Is. Religion." Stud. 

u. Kritiken, 1876, p. 599. 
Smith, G. Assyr. Discoveries . New ed. by Sayce. Lond., 1880. 
Smith, G. Assyria to the Fall of NineveJi. Lond., 1875. 
Smith, G. Doctrine of the Chertibim. Lond., 1850. 
Smith, G. Hist, of Babylon. Ed. by Sayce. Lond., 1877. 
Smith, G. Sacred Annals. Vol. i., Patriarchal Age. Lond., 1859. 
Smith, G. The Chaldcean Account of Genesis. New ed. Lond., 

1880; New York, 1881. 
Smith, G. "The Jews: a Deferred Rejoinder." Nineteenth Cen- 
tury, Nov., 1882. 
Smith, H. P. " Critical Theories of Julius Wellhausen." Presbyt. 

Rev., 1882, iii. 
Smith, H. P. " The High Places." Heb. Student, April, 1883. 
Smith, J. A. "Language of Primitive Man." Heb. Student, 

March, 1883. 
Smith, J. A. " Mod. Bib. Criticism : its Practical Bearings." Old 

Test. Student, Feb., 1884. 
Smith, J. A. " Studies in Archaeology and Comparative Religion." 

Old Test. Studeitt, 1884-85. 
Smith, J. R. Origin of the Htwi. Race. Philol. Proofs. Lond., 

1846. 
Smith, R. P. Mosaic AuttwrsJiip and Credibility of the Penta- 
teuch. Lond. Relig. Tract Society. 
Smith, T. Hist. of. Moses Viewed in connectiott with Egypt. An- 
tiquities. Edinb., 1860. 
Smith, W. A Dictionary of the Bible. 3 vols. Lond., 1860-63. 

Am. ed. revised, 4 vols. Boston, 1870. 
Smith, W. T/ie Boots of Moses; or, ttie Pent, in its Auttiority, 

Credibility, and Civilizatio7i. Lond., 1868. 
Smith, W. Ttie Old Test. History. Lond., 1865; New York, 

1871. 
Smith, W. R. Additional Answer to ttie Libel, etc. Edinb., 1878. 
Smith, W. R. "Animal Worship and An. Tribes among the 

Arabs and in the Old Testament." Journal of Ptiilol., 1880, 

P-75- 



Literature of the Pentateuch. 



465 



Smith, W. R. "Decalogue." Eiicyc. Britaimica. 

Smith, W. R. " The attitude of Christians toward the Old Testa 

merit." Expositor, April, 1884. 
Smith, W. R. " The Chronol. of the Books of Kings." 
X. p. 209. 
The Old Testament in the Jewish Church 



of Phitot.. 
Smith, W. R. 

1881. 
Smith, W. R. 
Smith, W. R. 



Journal 
Lond., 



The Prophets of Israel. Lond., 1882. 

" The Poetry of the Old Testament." British 

Quart. Rev., Jan., 1877. 
Smyth. Unity of the Hum. Paces. New York, 1850. 
Sorensen. Histor.-Krit. Commentar zur Genesis. Kiel, 185 1. 
Solomon, G. Genesis ubersetzt u. coinmentirt. Leipz., 1847. 
Solomon, J. D. Beschneidung Historisch m. Medicin. Beleuchtet. 

Braunschvv., 1884. 
Soltau. Vessels of the Tabernacle. Lond., 1865. 
Sommer. " Rein u. Unrein." Bibl. Abhandlitngen, Bonn, 1846. 
Southall. Recetit Origin of Man. Phil., 1875. 
Spencer, l^e Legibus Hebraeorimi Ritualibus. Camb., 1685, 1727. 
Spencer. Hebrews and Phoenicians, Classified ajtd Arranged. 

Lond., 1880. 
Spiess. Comparative Study of Religions. Jena, 1874. 
Spinoza. Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. Hamb., 1670. The 

book was actually printed in Amsterd. It is also found in 

Paulus's ed. of Spinoza's Works, vol. i. p. 141 (Jena, 1802), 

and was republished in England (Lond.) in 1863. 
Stade. Geschichte d. Volkes Israel (^Allgem. Geschichte in Einzel- 

darstellujig, herausg. Von Oncken). Berlin, 1881. 
Stade. " Lea u. Rachel." Zeitsch. f. d. Alttest. Wissenschaft, 

1881, p. 112. 
Stade. " Text des Berichtes liber Salomo's Bauten." Ibid., 188^, 



P- 
Stade. 



129. 



d. Vordeuteronom. Richterbu- 



Wo entstanden die Sagen iiber die Hebraer?" Ibid., 

p. 347- 
Stade. " Zur Entstehungsgesch. 

ches. Ibid., 1881, p. 339. 
Stahelin. Ajiimadversiones Quaedain ifi Jacobi Vaticiiiium (Gen. 

cap. xlix.). Basel, 1827. 
Stahelin. Das Leben Davids. Basel, 1866. 
Stahelin. " Der Stamm Levi." Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morgenldnd. 

Gesellschaft , ix. p. 708. 



Stahelin. 

Ibid., 
Stahelin. 

1843. 
Stahelin. 
Stahelin. 



" Eroberung u. Vertheidigung Palastinas durch Josua." 

1849, i^- 

Kritische Untersuchunge7i uber deii Pentateuch. Berlin, 

Kritische Untersuch. uber die Genesis. Basel, 1830. 
Review of Konio;;''s Alttest. Studien. Stud. u. Kritiken, 



Stahelin. Specielle Einleit. in 
Elberfeld, 1862. 



Kanon. Biicher d. Alt. Test. 



466 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Stanley. Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. 3 Parts. 

7th ed. New York, 1877. 
Stanley. Sinai and Palestine iti Connection with their History. 

New York, 1883. 
Starke. Synopsis BibliotheccB Exeget. in V. T. Leipz., 1741-50. 

New ed., Berlin, 1870. 
Staudlin. Co77imentt. de Legum Mosaicaruni Memento et Ingenio, 

Collectione et Effectibus . Gotting., 1796-97. 
Staudlin. "Die Echtheit der Mos. Schriften Vertheidigt." Ber- 

tholdf s A>//. Journal, 1825. 
Stearns. " The Old Testament in the Jewish Church." Baptist 

Quarterly, 1882, p. 221. 
Stebbins. A Study of the Pent, for Popular Reading, Boston, 

1881. 
Stebbins. "Did Ezra write or amend the Pentateuch?" Unit. 

Review, Sept., 1883. 
Steglich. Skizzen 'uber Schriften u. B'llcherwesen der Hebrder zur 

Zeit d. A. Bundes. Leipz., 1876. 
Steiner. " Opfer," " Jubeljahr," " Versohnungstag." ^ Schenkel's 

Bibel-Lex. 
Steinthal. " DasFunfte B. Mose." Zeitsch.f.Volkerpsychol.,x\. i. 
Steinthal. " Z. Characteristik d. Sem. Volker." Ibid., i860, p. 328. 
Sterringa. Animadv. Phil. Sacr. in Pentateuchu7n. Leyden, 1721. 
Steudel. Ueber die Haltbarkeit d. Glaubens an Geschichtliche 

H'ohere Offenbarungen Gottes. Stuttg., 18 14. 
Stevens. " Prehistoric Literature." Bibliotheca Sac, xxviii. p. 609. 
Stewart. The Mosaic Sacrifices . Lond., 1883. 
Stickel. " Auszug d. Israeliten aus yEgypten bis z. Rothen Meer." 

Stud u. Kritiken, 1850, ii. 
Stier. Priest er u. Prophet en, ihr Werken u. Gegenseitiges Verhdlt- 

niss. Wien, 1884. 
Stifler. " The Relation of the Gospels and the Pentateuch." 

Baptist Quarterly Rev., Jan., 1883. 
Stockl. Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen u. seiner Geschichte. 

Mainz, i860. 
Stockl. Liturgie u. Dogniatische Bedeutimg der Alt test. Opfer. 

Regensb., 1848. 
Stokes. The Objectivity of Truth. Lond., 1884. 
Strachan. Mosaic Narrative Examined. Lond., 1854. 
Strack. " Gesch. d. Juden." Jahresberichte d. Geschichtswissen- 

schaft, 1878, i. 
Strack. Prolegomena Criticd i?i V. Test. Hebraicum. Leipz., 

1873. See, also, "Pentateuch," in Herzog's Redl-Ejicyk., 2te 

Aufl. 
Strack. See Zockler. 
Strack. " The Higher Criticism a Witness to the Credibility of 

the Biblical Narrative." Hcbraica, March, 1884. 
Strong. " Documentary Origin of Genesis." Meth. Quart. Rev.^ 

Jan., 1882. 
Strong. See McClintock. 



Literature of the Pentatcttch. 467 

Stuart. TsraeVs Lawgiver. Lond., 1882. 

Stuart. The Bible True to Itself. A Treatise on the Historical 

Truth of the Old Testament. Lond., 1884. 
StUbner. Ad Hist. Eccles. Vet. Test.Introdiictio. Niirnb., 1690. 
Studer. Das Buch d. Richter erkldrt. Leipz., 1835. 
Studer. De Versionis Alex. Origine, Historia, Usu et Abiisji Crit- 

ico. Bern, 1823. 
Studi'm. Theologish Tijdschrift onder Redactie van Chantepie en 

Valeton, Groningen, from 1875. The second has an article on 

the Bible as a Revelation, From 1879 there are papers on 

Deuteronomy. 
Subjects in Disptde between the Author of the Div. Legation of Mos. 

[Warburton] and a late Professor in Oxford. Lond., 1766. 
Super. " Recent Crit. of the Pentateuch." Northwestern Chris- 
tian Advocate, Dec. 17, 1884. 
Siiss. Die Sundflidh. Leipz., 1883. 
Sutherland " The Pentateuch and Egypt." Methodist Quart., 

XXXV, 221 
Talbot. Antiq, of the Book of Genesis. Lond., 1839. 
" Targums on the Pentateuch." Am. Ch. Quart. Rev., April, 1881. 
Taylor, E, B. Primitive Culture. Lond., 1871. 
Taylor, F. Chald. Parapr. in Pent. Latine, etc. Lond., 1649. 
Taylor, L Consideratiojis on the Pentateuch. 3d ed. Lond., 

1863. 
Taylor, J. P. "Prof. W. Robertson Smith from a Conservative 

Standpoint." Bibliotheca Sac, 1882, p. 291. 
Taylor, W. C. ///. of Bible from Momiments of Egypt . Lond., 

1838. 
Taylor, W. M. Moses the Lawgiver . New York, 1879. 
Teller, Die Aelteste Theodicee. Jena, 1802. 
Teller. Notae Crit. et Exeget. in Gen. xlix., Deut. xxxiii., Ex. xv., 

Jud. V Halle, 1766. 
Terry. " The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch." Methodist 

Quart. Rev., 1884, pp. 405, 605. 
Terser- Annotationes in Genesin. Upsala, 1655. 
Thalemann. Tractat. de Nube super Area Foederis . Leipz., 1752. 
Thalhofer. Die Unblutigen Opfer des Mos~ Cidtus. Regensb., 

184^. 
Thayer. The Hebrews and the Red Sea. Andover, 1883. 
" The Book of Genesis and Science." Lond. Quart. Review, 

April, 1877. 
" The Distinctive Character of the O. Test. Scriptures." Brit, and 

For. Ev. Review, Jan., 1870. 
"The Genesis and the Sinaitic Revelation." Ai7ier. Israelite, July 

18, 1884. 
Theile. Pentateuchus . Ex Editione utriusqjie Testainenti Tauch- 

nitiana. Leipz., 1861. 
Thenius. Die Bucher Samuels erkldrt {Exeget. Handb. zum 

A. T.). 2te Aufl., Leipz., 1864. 
Thenius. Die Bucher K'dnige. Ide^n, 1873. 



468 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 

Theodoret. " Questiones in Leviticum.'" Op. torn. i. p. 114. 

Ed. Sirmond. Paris, 1642. 
" The Old Test, and Human Sacrifice." British and For. Ev. 

Review, July, 1884. 
Theologisch-Homiletisches Bibelwerk, herausg. v. J. P. Lange. 

Leipz., 1857 flf. The work on the Pent. — excepting Deut. by 

Schroeder — was by the editor. See Commentary. 
" The Peninsula of Sinai." Lond. Quarterly Rev., July, 1867. 
Thierbach. Ueber den Auszug d. Kinder Is. atts yEgypten. 

Erfurt, 1830. 
Thiersch. De Pentateuchi Versione Alexandrina. Erlang., 1841. 
Theirsch. Die Genesis nach ihrer Morat. 71. Prophet. Bedentiing. 

Basel, 1870. 2te Aufl. under title: Die Anfdnge d. Heil. 

Gesch. nach dent Ersten B. Mosis Betrachtet. Basel, 1877. 
Tholuck. " Ueber den Ursprung des Namens Jehova." Ver- 

Diischte Schriften, Gotha, 1867, p. 184. 
Thomas. Key to the Bootes of Sam., Qic. Lond., 188 1. 
Thompson, E. A. "Genesis and its First Four Chapters." Brit- 
ish and For. Ev. Review, Jan., 1877. 
Thompson, J. Guide to Study of the Pentateuth. Lond., 1839. 
Thompson, J. P. " Notes on Egyptology." Bibliotheca Sac. 

Continued through a series of years from 1864. 
Thompson, W. H. The Great Argument ', or, Jesus Christ iii the 

Old Test. New York, 1884. 
Thompson, W. M. The Land ajid the Book. 2 vols. New York, 

1882. 
Thornton . Lectures on the Pentateuch . Lond . , 1 843 . 
Thwing. " Prof. W. Robertson Smith and his Theories of Old 

Test. Criticism." Bibliotheca Sac, 1882, p. 133. 
Tieftrunk. Versuch eijier Kritik der Religion. Berlin, 1790. 
Tiele, C, P. Die Assy riot. u. ihre Ergebnisse f. d. Vergleichende 

Religio7isgeschichte. Leipz., 1878. 
Tiele, C. P. Egyptian Religion. Lond. and Boston, 1882. 
Tiele, C. P. Egyptische en MesopotajniscJie Godsdienstcn. Am- 

sterd., 1872. 
Tiele, C. P. " La Religion des Ph^niciens." Revue de VHistoire 

des Religions, 1881, t. iii. 2. 
Tiele, J. N. Chronol. d. A. T. bis zum ersten fahr Koresch. 

Bremen, 1839. 
Tiele, J.N. Das Erste B. Mosis Uebersetzt u. Com. Erlang., 1836. 
Tischendorf. See Heyse. 
Tischendorf. Bibliorujn Codex Sinaiticus Petrop. St. Petersb., 

1862. 
Tischendorf. De Israelitaru7n per Mare Rubrum Traiisitii. 

Leipz., 1847. 
Tischendorf. V. T. Graece. 5th ed. 1875. The ed. of 1880 

contains as an appendix the readings of II. and X. by Nestle. 
Tobler. GedanJzen 7/. Antwort sur Ehre d. Altvlit. u. Mosis. 

Zurich, 1788. 
Tompkins. " Egyptology and the Bible." I^at. Expior. Ex. E'und. 

Quarterly, Jan., 1884. 



Literattcre of the Pentateuch. 469 

Topler. De PentateticJii Interpretationis Alex. Indole Crit. et Her- 
tnenetit. Halle, 1830. 

Townsend, G. Com. on the Pent, and Job. Lond., 1849. 

Townsend, J. Veracity of Mos. as Historian. Vol. i. Lond., 
1813. 

Townsend, L. T. Mosaic Records and Mod. Science. Lond., 188 1. 

Toy. " Date of Deuteronomy." Unitarian Rev., Feb., 1885. 

Toy. "On the Gen. Interpret, of Ezek. xL-xlviii." (abstract). 
JournalofSoc.forBib. Lit. and Exegesis, July-Dec, 1880. 

Toy. The Babylon. Element in Ezekiel. /bid., iSSi, -p. ^9- 

Tracy. " The Bible Doctrine of Divorce." Bibliotheca Sac, xxiii. 
p. 384. 

" Tradition a Source of Relig. Knowledge in Early Ages." Bibli- 
otheca Sac, xvi. p. 359. 

** Transmission of Books of Moses." Christian Observer, Ixv. 707. 

Trapp. Com. upon the Pentateuch. Lond., 1650. 

Trede. Der Einheit. Ursprnng d. Menschengeschlechts . Kiel, 
1878. 

Tridon. Dn Molochisme Jnif. Bruxelles, 1884. 

Trigland. Disputatt. de Origine Sacrificiorum. Leyden, 1692. 

Trip. Die Theophanien i7i den Geschichtsbtichern d. A. T. Ley- 
den, 1858. Rev. by Schultze. Stud. u. Kritiken, 1859, ii. 

Tristam. Gejiesis and the Brickfields. Lond., 1879. 

Tristam. The Land of Israel. 2d ed., Lond., 1866. 

Tromm. Concordantiae Graecae Versionis. . . Inter prelum. 2 tomi. 
Amsterd., 17 18. 

Trower. Short Comments on Numb, and Deuteronomy. Lond., 
1877. 

Trumbull. Kadesh-Bartiea : its l7nportance and Prob. Site. New 
York, 1883. 

Trusen. Die Silt en, etc., d. Allen Hebraer. Breslau, 1853. 

Tuch. " Bemerk. zur Genesis c. xiv." Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morgen- 
I'dnd. Gesellschaft, i. p. 161. 

Tuch. Commentar iiber die Genesis. 2te Aufl. besorgt von Ar- 
nold u. Merx. Halle, 1871. 

Tuch. " Etwas liber das Manna." Zeitsch. d. Deut. Morgenldiid. 
Gesellschaft, iv. p. 224. 

Tulloch. " Luther and Recent Criticism." Nineteenth Century, 
April, 1884. 

Turner. Compan. to Book of Gejiesis. New York, 1846. 

Twesten. Die Religiosen, Polit., u. Socialen Ideen d. Asiat. Cul- 
turvolker. Berlin, 1872. 

Tyler. "Origin of Name Jehovah." Modern Rev., 1883, p. 177. 

Tympe. Prima Quinque Genes eos Capita. Jena, 1756. 

Tyndale. The Pent, newly Corrected, ^\£.. 1534. A facsimile ed. 
by Mombert, New York, 1884. 

Ubaldi. Introductio in Sacram Scripturam. Vol. ii., Rome, 

1879. 
Ugolino. Thesaurus Antiquitat. Sacrarum. 34 vols. Venice, 
1769. 



470 The PentatettcJi : Its Origin and Structure. 

Uhlemann. Handb. d. Aegypt. Alterthiunskunde. Leipz., 1857 f. 
Uhlemann. Israeliten u.Hyksos in Aegypten. Leipz., 1856. 
Ullmann. Historisch oder Mythisch? Hamburg, 1838. 
Ulysse. Pentateiichi Versio Latina Antiquissima e Cod. Lugdtt- 

nensi. Paris, 1881. 
Umbreit. Grundtone d. Alten TestaiJients. Heidelb., 1843. 
Umbreit. "Probe einer Auslegung d. Schopfungsgeschichte.'" 

Stud. u. Kritiken, 1839, i- 
Umbreit. " Der Busskampf Jacobs." Ibid., 1848, i. 
Umbreit. Review of Bahr's Symbolik d. Mos. Cidtus. Ibid., 

1843, i. 
Umbreit. Review of Friedrich's Symb. d. Mos. Stiftshutte. Ibid. 
Umbreit. " Sieben Blicke in d. i Cap. d. Genesis." Ibid., 1846, 

iv. ; 1847, iii. 
Unruh. Zug der Israelii, aus Aegypten nach Canaaji. Langen- 

salza, i860. 
Urgeschichte d. Welt, etc. Anon. Zerbst, 1855. 
Urquhart. " Jehovistic and Eloliistic Theories." British and For. 

Ev. Review, 1882, p. 205. 
Use of Jehovah and EloJiivi in Pentateuch. Lond., 1869. 
Usher. Annates V. et N. Test. Lond., 1650; Bremen, 1686. 
Vaihinger. " Pentateuch," " Moses," "Pascha," " Philistaa" u. 

" Philister," " Pfingsfest." Herzog's Redl-Encyk. iste Aufl. 
Vaihinger. " Ueber das Verzeichniss der Reisezuge Israels durch 

die Wuste, Numb, xxxiii. 1-49." Stud. u. Krititeen, 1870, 

. p. 445- 
Vaihinger. " Weg d. Israeliten v. Gosen bis zum Uebergang durch 

d. Rothe Meer." Ibid., 1872. 
Vaihinger. " Zur Aufhellung d. nach exilischen Geschichte d. 

Volkes Israel nach d. Buchern Esra u. Nehemia." Ibid., 1854, 

i.; 1855,1. 
Valeton. " Deuteronomium." St^idzhi, v., Nos. 2, 3, and 4; vi. 

2, 3, 4; vii. 1-3. See Studien. 
Van Dyk. " Godsdienst en Plistorie." Valeton's Studien, vii. 4. 
Van Goens. " La M^thode de la Critique d'apr^s A. Kuenen." 

Rev. de Thiol, et de Philos., Mars, 1881. 
Van Oosterzee. Moses : a Biblical Study. Trans. Lond., 1875. 
Van Til. Co7nme?itarius de Tabernac. Mosis. Dort, 17 14. 
Van Til. Opus Analyt. comprehejidens Introductio7iem in S. S. 

Jena, 1723. 
Varen. Decades Mosaicae in Gen. et Exodum. 1659. 
Varen. Decades Biblicae in IV. Libri Mosis. 1668. 
Vater. Cojnmentar uber den Pentateuch. Halle, 1802-5. 
Vatke. Die Religion d. Alien Test. Berlin, 1835. 
Vatke. See Hilgenfeld. 

Veith. Anfdnge d. Menschenwelt. Wien, 1865. 
Venema. Dissertationes ad Genesin. 17^7. 
Venema, Institutt. Historiae Ec. Vet. et Nov. Test. Leyden, 

1777-83. 
Vercellone. See Cozza. 



Literature of the Pentatetich. /^'ji 

Vermigli. In P7'i)n. Librmn Mosis Com. 2d ed. Heidelberg, 

1606. 
Vernes. " L'Origine at la Composition du Pentateuque.'" Melanges 

de Critiqite Religieuse. Paris, 1880. 
Vernes. " Les plus Anciens Sanctuaires des Israelites. '^ Revue de 

VHistoire des Religions. 3^ Ann^e, Nr. i . 
V6ron. Histoire Naturelle d. Religions, etc. Tom. v. et vi. de la 

Bibliothek ]\Iaterialiste. Paris, 1884. 
Veins Testamentnjn jiixta Septnaginta ex Auctoritate Sixti V. P. M. 

Editnm. Rome, 1587. 
Vigouroux. " La Bible et TAssyriologie." Rev. des Questions His- 

toriques, Avril, Oct., 1879. 
Vigouroux. La Bible et la Decouvertes Modei^nes en Palestine, en 

Egypte, et en Assyrie. 3d ed. 4 vols. Paris, 1881-82. 
Vigouroux. "La Bible et TEgyptologie. Le Passage de la Mer 

Rouge par les H^breux.'" Revne des Questions Historiqnes, 

Janv., 1 88 1. 
Vigouroux. " La Chronologic Biblique avant le Deluge." Ques- 
tions Controver sees de VHistoire, 2^ Serie, 1881. 
Vigouroux. " Les Juges d'lsrael." Rev. des Questions Histo- 

riqties. Juill., 1877. 
Vigouroux. Mamiel hiblique Ancien Test. 2d 6d. T. i. Intro- 
duction Gtnerale Pentateuque. Besancon, 1881. 
Vilmar. " Symbol. Bedeutung des Naziraergelubdes." Stud. u. 

Kritikeii^ 1864, iii. 
Vogel. D. letzten Grunde d. Mensch. Glaubens. Sulzb., 1806. 
Volck. Der Segen Mosis. Erlangen, 1873. 
Volck. Die Bedeutinig d. Semit. Philologie f. d. Alttest. Exegese. 

2te Aufl., Dorpat, ^874. 
Volck. Mosis Canticu7n Cygneiini. Nordling., 1861. 
Volck. See Gesenius. 

Volker. Mythologie des JapJiet. Geschlechtes . Giessen, 1824. 
VoUers. Pentateuclms Sainaritanits (iii. Leviticus). [A continu- 
ation of Petermann's work.] Berlin, 1883. 
Volney. Recherches Nouv. sur VHistoire Ancienne. Paris, 18 14. 
"Von den Beiden Recensionem der Zehn Worte." Allgemeine 

Zeit. d. Judenthuins, 1882, p. 521. 
Vuilleumier. Ettide sur le Monotheisine des Hcbreux, son Carac- 

tere, ses Origines. Paris, 1864. 
Vuilleumier. " La Critique du Pentateuque dans sa Phase Actu- 

elle." Revue de Thiol, et de Philos., 1882-84. 
Vuilleumier. La Redeinptio7i dans VAiicien Test. Paris, 1869. 
Vuilleumier. " Le Moise Egyptien," etc. Rev. de Thiol, et de 

Philos., Nov., 1880. 
Vuilleumier. " Le Nom de Dieu Jahv6h-9eba6th.'" Rev. de Thiol. 

et de Philos., Avril, 1877. 
Waehner. Antiquitates Ebraeorum de Israeliticae Gentis Origine, 

etc. 2 vols. Getting., 1742-43. 
Wahl. D. Verfasser d. Buches d. Richter. Tubing. , 1859. 
Waitz. Einheit d. Menschengeschlechts , etc. Leipz., 1859-60. 



472 The PentateucJi : Its Origin and StriLctiire, 

Walcott. Saa^ed Archeology . Lond., 1868. 
Walton. S.S. Biblia Polyglotta. 6 vols. fol. Lond., 1657. 
Wangemann. Das Erste Buck Mosis . . . erkldrt. Berlin, 1881. 
Wangemann. Das Opfer nach Lehre d. Hcil. Schrift. 2 vols. 

Berlin, 1866. 
Wangemann. Die Bedeutung d. StiftsJi'utte. Berlin, 1866. 
Warburton. Divine Legatioit of Mosis Demonstrated. 5 vols. 

Lond. (1738), 1846. 
Ward, L. F. Genesis of Man. Phil., 1880. 

Ward, W. H. "Assyrian Studies." Bibliotheca Sac ., in-xvii. p. 184. 
Ward, W. H. " The Serpent Tempter in Oriental Mythology." 

Ibid., A^rW, 1881. 
Warnekros. Entiviirf d. Hebr. Alterthihner. Weimar, 1782. 3d 

ed. by A. G. Hoffmann, 1832. 
Warring. " The Argument of Science with Gen. i." Journal of 

Christian Philos., Jan., 1884. 
Washburn. Sermo7is 07i the Ten Commandments. New York, 

1875. 
Washburn. "Aim and Infl. of Mod. Bib. Criticism." Princeton 

Rev., July, 1879. 
Watson. The Law and the Prophets. Huls. Lectures, 1882. 

Lond., 1884. 
Watts. The Newer Criticis7n and the Analogy of Faith. 3d ed. 

Edinb., 1882. 
Weber, F. W. Kurzgefasste Einleit. i7t d. Heil. Schrift. 6te 

Aufl., Nordling., 1881. 
Weber, G. Geschichte d. Volkes Israel. Leipz., 1867. 
Weed. " Route of the Exodus." Expositor, S^T^i., liZ;^. 
Weiller. Idee7i z. Gesch. d. Entwickehing d. Relig. Glaubens. 

Miinchen, 1808-15. 
Weiss, B. Critical Invest, of Hist. Eveiits, etc., of Pent. Dundee, 

1850. 
Weiss, J. H. Zur Geschichte d. J'udischen Tradition. Wien, 

1871. 
Welch. " Moses and his Wife." New Englander , Sept., 1881. 
Weld. " Route of the Exodus." Pal. Explor. Fund Quarterly, 

July, 1883. 
Wellhausen. " Composition des Hexateuchs." Jahrb. f. Deutsche 

Theologie, 1876-77. 
Wellhausen. De Gentibns et Faitiiliis Judaeis quae i CJiron. ii.-iv. 

enumerantur. Gotting., 1871. 
Wellhausen. Geschichte Israels. Erster Band. Berlin, 1883. 2te 

Aufl., under the title, Prolego7nena zur Geschichte Israels. 

Berlin, 1883. 
Wellhausen. " Israel." E7icyc. Brita7i7iica. 
Wellhausen. Skizzefi u. Vorarbeiten. i. "Abriss d. Geschichte 

Israels u. Juda's." Berlin, 1884. 
Welte. Nach77iosaisches i//i Pc7itateuch bcleuchtet. Freiburg, 1841. 
Welte. See Herbst, also Wetzer. 
Werner, A. De Votis Vet. Israelitaru7n. Stade, 1737. 



Literature of the Pentateuch. 473 

Werner, C. G. Geschichtliche Atiffassuiig d. drei Erst en Kapitel d. 

Erste7i B. Mosis. Tubing. , 1829. 
Wesseling. Diat}-. Jiidaeorwn Archonitibus. Utrecht, 1738. 
Wetzer (u. Welte). Kirchejt-Lexiko?t. 2te Aufl., Frankf., from 

1880. 
Whedon. Com. on the Old and New Testaments . 7 vols. New 

York, 1860-80. 
Whiston. Works of Flav. Josephus (trans, from Greek). Lond,, 

1736. See Josephus. 
White. Coin, on Gen. i.-iii. Lond., 1656. 
Whitehouse. " Route of the Exodus." Expositor, Vx^o.., iZZ-^. 
Whitfield. Tabernacle, Priesthood, and Offerings of Israel. 2d 

ed. Lond., 1884. 
Wichelhaus. " Gedanken aus der Einleitung in die Genesis." 

Refor?nirte K. Zeitung, 1884, pp. 721, 769. 
Wickes. Moses or the Zidu. Lond., 1863. 
Wicksteed. " Sources of Early Israelitish History." Atlantic 

Monthly, March, 1884. 
Wiedemann. Aegyptische Geschichte. i Abtheil. Gotha, 1884. 
Wiedemann. Gesch. Aegypt. v. Psatninetisch i. bis anf Alex, den 

Gross en. Leipz., 1880. 
Wiedemann. " Gesch. d. achzehnten ^gyp. Dynastie." Zeitsch. 

d. Deutsch. Morg. Gesellschaft, 1877, p. 613. 
Wight. Genesis a7id Geology. Lond., 1857. 
Wight. Mosaic Creation and Geology. Lond., 1847. 
Wiener. Wdrtei'buch zicm Pentateuch. Hannover, 1867. 
Wilkins, A. S. PhcEnicia and Israel. Lend., 187 1. 
Wilkins, D. Qninqiie Lib. Moysis in Lingua ^gyptiaca et ex 

eadem Latine versi. Lond., 173 1. 
Wilkinson, L G. Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. 

Revised ed. by Birch. 3 vols. Lond., 1878. 
Wilkinson, W. C. " The Lev. Law as a Tuition to Theism." Heb. 

Student, Jan.-Feb., 1883. 
Williams. The Beginiiiiig of the Book of Genesis. Lond., 1861 . 
Willis. The Worship of the Old Covenant. Lond., 1880. 
Wilson, D. Pre-historic Man. 2 vols. Lond., 1862. 
Wilson, E. The Egypt of the Past. Lond., 1881. 
Wilson, J. Our Israelitish Origin, etc. Lond., 1878. 
Winchell. A Demonstration of the Existence of Men before Adam, 

etc. Chicago, 1880. 
Winchell. Evdiition. New York, 1874. 
Winchell. Reconcil. of Science and Religioft. Ibid., iZ'j'j. 
Winer. Biblisches Realiv'drterbuch. 2 Bde. 3te Aufl., Leipz., 

1847-48. 
Winer. De Version. Pentat. Samar. Indole. Leipz., 18 17. 
Winer. De Otikeloso ejicsque Paraph. Chaldaica. Erlang., 1820. 
Winer. De Jonathanis in Pentateuchum Paraph. Chaldaica. 

Ibid., 1823. 
Wines. Co7H7nentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews. New 

York, 1855. 



474 T^^^^ P ejitateiich : Its Origin and Structzire. 

Wines. " Laws of the Ancient Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sac, x. 

p. 619. 
Winstock. " The Prophets as Spiritual Guardians of the Hebrew 

Faith." A7ner. Hebrew, Jan. 2, 1885. 
Wise. "Moses: the Man and the Statesman." Amer. Israelite, 

1883, Jan. 26, Feb. 2. 
Witsius. " De Cultu Molochi." Miscel. Sacra. Leyden, 1736. 
Wogue. Histoire de la Bible et de VExeg^se Biblique Jnsgic' a nos 

yours. Paris, 1881. 
Wolcott. " The Site of Sodom." Bibliotheca Sac, xxv. p. 112. 
Wolde. De Anno Hebraeorum yubilaeo. Getting., 1837. 
Wolff, M. Urgeschichte oder i Mos. i.-vi. 8. Homberg, i860. 
Wolff, O. " Auszugd. Israeliten aus yEgypten." Theol. Zeitschrift 

V. Dieckhof u. Kliefoth, 1863. 
WooUey. Analysis of the Hebrew Mythology. Lond., 1877. 
Wolseley. Reasonabletiess of Scripture Belief . Lond., 1672. 
Wordsworth. The Holy Bible in the Author. Version. With Notes 

and Introductions. Lond., 1872. 
Wright, A. Practical Com. on the Pentateuch. Lond., 1661. 
Wright, C. H. H. The Book of Genesis in Hebrew with a Criti- 
cally Revised Text, etc. Lond., 1859. 
Wright, G. F. " Recent Works on Prehistoric Archaeology." 

Bibliotheca Sac, xxx. p. 381. 
Wright, Wm. The Empire of the Hittites in the Light of the Bible 

and Inscriptions . Lond., 1884. 
Wurster. " Zur Characteristik u. Geschichte des Priester-codex u. 

Heiligkeitsgesetz." Zeitsch.f. Alttest. Wissenschaft, 1884,1. 
Wuttke. Religion-2i. Staatsidee in d. Vorchristlichen Zeit. Leipz., 

1872. 
Yonge. "Esau and Jacob." Expositor, May, 1884. 
Yonge. " Jacob's Pillar." /<^^;;2, Jan., 1884, 
Zahn. "1st Fetischismus eine urspriingliche Form d. Religion?" 

Allge77i. Miss. Zeitsch., May, 1879. 
Zahn. Samuel der Prophet u. Reformator. Vortrag. Barmen, 

1873- 
Ziegler, A. Histor. Entwickelung d. G'dtthchen Offejibarung in 

ihr. Haupt77iomente Speculativ Betrachtet. Nordl., 1842. 
Ziegler, L. Bruchsttlcke ei7ier vorhiero7iy77iia7iischen Uebersetzu7ig 

des Pentateuch . . . zu77i ersten Male verdffe7itlicht. MUnchen, 

1883. 
Zockler. "Der Mos. Schbpfungsbericht u. die Neuere Naturwis- 

senschaft." Ev. Kirchenzeitung, 1880, No. 25 f. 
Zockler. " Die Sintfluth-Sagen des Alterthums, nach ihrem Ver- 

haltniss zur biblischen Sintfiuthgeschichte." Jahrb. f. Deut. 

Theol. , 1870, p. 319. 
Zockler. Die Urgeschichte der Erde u. des Menschc7i. Vortrage. 

GUtersloh, 1868. 
Zockler. " Die Urgestalt der Religion." Warneck's Afissions- 

Zeitschrift, Oct.-Dec, 1880. 
Zockler. " Gesetz u. Propheten." Ev. Kirchcn-Zcituin;;, Nos. ■},'>^, 

34, 1882. 



Literature of tJie Pentateuch. 475 

Zockler. Handb. d. Theologischen Wissenschaften in Encyklop'd- 

discher Darstelliing. Nordlingen, 1883 f. See particularly the 

section on " Einleitung ins A. T." by Strack, " ArchaoL," and 

" Gesch." by F. W. Schultz. In English, T. and T. Clark, 

Edinb. 
Zockler. Luther als Ausleger d. Alien Test., gew'itrdigt auf Grund 

seines groseren Genesis-Cominentar . Greifswald, 1884. 
Zockler. "Nineveh's u. Bab. Zeugniss f. d. Geschichtsinhalt d. 

Alten Test.'* Zeitsch.f. Kirch. IViss., etc., 1880, p. 289. 
Zockler. " Ueber die Anfange d. Menschlichen Geschichte." 

Zeitsch.f. Luther. Theol., 1869. 
Zollmann. Bibel u. Natur in der Harmonie ihrer Offenbarung. 

3te Aufl., Hamb., 1872. 
Zorn. Historia Biblioriun ex Ebraeoruin Diebiis Festis et Jejiiniis. 

Leipz., 1 741. 
Zschokke. Historia Sacra Antiq. Testameiiti. 2d ed. Wien, 

1884. 
Zunz. Die Gottesdienstlicheti Vortrdge d. Jiiden His tor is ch Ent- 

wickelt. Berlin, 1832. 
Zunz. Die 24 Bucher d. Heil. Schrift. Berlin, 1837. Zunz was 

general editor. His co-laborers were Arnheim, FUrst, and 

Sachs. 



XII. 

INDEXES. 

(i) Scripture Texts.^ 



1. 2 204 

ii. 17 238 

ii. 21-24 156 

iii. 17 64 

iv. 10 . t 149 

iv. 25 58 

V. 29 . 64 

viii. 20 102,229 

ix. 4 175 

ix. 6 149 

X. 10 .... 208 

xii. 6 47.52 

xiii. 10-13 64 

xiv. 14 ... 53 

xv_. 18 . . . . ■ 187 

xvi. 10 64 

xvii. 10 21 

xvii. 20 64 

xviii. . . . • loi 

xviii. 14 336 

xyiii. 18 341 

xix. 20. 64 

xix. 3» 170 

XX 65 

XX. 13 91 

xxi. 33 64 

xxii. 7 102,229 

xxii. 14 47 

xxii. 18 341 

xxii. 19 64 

xxvi. 4 341 

xxxi. 54 102,229,231 

xxxiv. 15 21 

XXXV. 21 52 

xxxvi. 31, 47, 52 141 

xxxvii. 14 52 

xxxviii 158 

xxxviii. 21 194 

xl. 15 52 

xlvi. I 102 

xlvi. 27 21 

xlvii. 22 113 

xlix. 3 190 

xlix. ID 141 



Exodus. 

iii 

vi. 12-16, viii 



X. 25 . . 
xii. 6, 10 



59 
214 
231 
108 
102 



Exodus. 
xiii. 13 150 

XV, 3 368 

XV; II 337 

XVI. 3 142 

xvii. 14 50 

xvii. 15 354 

xvii. 8-16 159 

xviii. 13-16 225 

xix. 6 308,337 

xix. 22, 24 113 

xix. 20, 25 124 

xx.-xxiii -7,51176,85 

XX. 3,4 140 

XX. ID 342 

XX. 12 43 

XX. 17 184 

XX. 22-xxiii. ig . 68 f. 

XX. 22, 23 233 

XX. 23-26 230 

XX. 24 354 

XX. 24, 25 302 

XX. 25 94 

XXI. 2-6 179,233 

xxi. 6, 22 113 

xxi. 13 186,254 

xxi. 16 198 

xxi. 17 150 

xxi. 22 113,152 

xxii. 8 113 

xxii. 16, 18 193 

xxii. 18 191 

xxii. 19 183 

xxii. 20 342 

xxii. 21-24 ^82 

xxii. 24,25,26 195,197 

xxii. 27 209 

xxii. 30 175 

xxiii. 4, 5 190 

xxiii. 9-11 177 

xxiii. 14 93 

xxiii. 16 107,109 

xxiii. 18 108 

xxiii. 23, 24, 27-33 172 

xxiii. 24 169 

xxiv. 4 51 

xxiv. 16 • 91 

xxv.-xxviii. ; xxxvi. -xxxviii. . . . 220 

XXV. 8 91 

XXV. 10-22 225 

XXV. 23-30 227 

XXV. 29 231 



^ All references are to the Hebrew text. 



Indexes. 



477 



Exodus. 

xxvii. 20, 21 22S 

xxviii. 1-43 210 

xxviii. 41 119 

xxix. loi 

xxix. 26-2S 127 

xxix. 29 214 

xxix. 38-42 214 

xxix. 46 91 

XXX. I-2I, 34-38 226 

XXX. 10 242 

XXX. 22-33 120, 215 

XXX. 30 119,214 

xxxii 219 

xxxii. 6 231 

xxxiii. 7-9, II 222,224 f- 

xxxiv. I 21 

xxxiv. 13, 23 93 

xxxiv. 10-26 51 

xxxiv. 12-17 169, 172 

xxxiv. 18 105, 107 

xxxiv. 18, 25 108 

xxxiv. 22 107, 109 

xxxiv. 25 230 

xxxiv. 26 191 

XXXV., xl 72 

xl. 17 229 

Leviticus. 

i. 1-17 229 

ii loi 

ii. 1-6, 7-11 230 

ii. II 102 

iii. 1-17 231 

iv 232 

iv. 3, 5, 16 119 

V. 22, 23 191 

vi. 5 103 

vi. II . 192 

vi. 12-16 213 

vi. 19 . . . . 300 

vii., xxii., xxiii., xxvii 197 

vii. 15-17 128 

vii. 36 214 

viii.-x 72 

viii. 12 213 

X. 8-11 215 

X; 9 230 

xi. 2-19 20 

xi. 1-21, 22-43 173 f- 

xi. 44 308 

xii. 1-18 237 

xii. 31 202 

xiii., xiv 20, 43, 199 

xiii. 13-19 201 

XV. 1-33 194 

xvi Ill 

xvi. 1,2 244 

xvi. 1-34 242 

xvi. 4 119 

xvii. 1-9 20 

xvii.-xxvi 77, 86, 98, 106 

xvii. 5 98 

xvii. 7 193 

xvii. 8, 9 90 

xviii. 6ff. 193 

xviii. 16 158 

xviii. 20 193 

xviii. 21 170 

xviii. 22 194 



Leviticus. 

xix. 3 f. 148 

xix. II, 15, 16 188 

xix. 13,33,34 182 

xix. 20 157 

xix. 26-31 184 

xix. 27, 28 172 

xix. 35, 36 200 

XX. 4,5 .171 

XX. 9 150 

XX. 18 201 

xxi. 7 156 

xxi. 10 118 

xxii. 1-16 218 

xxii. 8 176 

xxii. II 202 

xxii. 15 175 

xxii. 19-27 181 

xxii. 21, 23 299 

xxii. 28 191 

xxiii. 9-22 . . < 106 

xxiii. 23-25 239 

xxiii. 26-32 111,242 

xxiv. 5-9 227 

xxiv. 15 202 

x.\;v. 1-7 177 

XXV. 10-14 209 

XXV. 13-16 202 

XXV. 35-37 195 

XXV. 39-46 179 

XXVI. 15 . . 299 

xxvi. 30 169 

xxvi. 46 235 

xxvii. 1-34 234 

xxvii. 10 236 

Numbers. ^ 

i.-xiv ; . . 216 

iii- 3 214 

iv. 34-49 222 

V. 1-4 194 

vi. 1-21 . 236,348 

vi., XV., xxix f. 197 

vi. 22-27 219 

vii. 8 222 

viii. 1-4 281 

X. 10 348 

X. II 229 

X. 33 223 

X. 35 221,354 

xi. 24, 26, 30 224 

xii. 2 219 

XV. I -16 301 

XV. 1-12 230 

XV. 2 231 

XV. 3 299 

XV. 22-28 232 

XV. 30, 31 209 

xviii. ID 218 

xix. 1-22 238 

xix. 14 f. 309 

xxiii. 9 341 

XXV. 3 263 

XXV. 10-13 216 

xxvii. 2T 212 

xxviii 1-15 229 

xxix. 7-1 1 242 

XXX. 3 196 

xxxii. 41 ... 269 



4/8 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure, 



Deuteronomy. 
i. I f 259,265 

!• 1-5 253 

i. 2, II 266 

?• 2 47 

1-5 51 

1. 6 254 

i. 23 21 

i. 26, 31, 43; vi. t6, etc 287 

i. 28, 31 262 

ii. 7 263 

ii. 10, 12 267 

ii. 20 170 

iii. 9 268 

iji- II 47 

iii. 21 263 

iv. 3 . . 263 

iv. 4-xxviii 67 

iv. 5, 10 287 

iv. 15-19 168 

iv. 19 140 

iv. 41 21 

vi; 4 90, 335 

vii. 3 216 

vii. 5, 25, 26 338 

vii. 23-29 288 

X. 1-5 21 

X. 3 226 

X. 6, 7 271 

X. 8 115 

X. 12 301,315 

X. 15 287 

xi. 2 i 263 

xi. 10 279 

xi. 29 _. 288 

xii.-xxvi 7> 51 

xii. I 168 

xii. 2-4, 5-28 134 

xii, 5, 8 89 

xii. 6-16 20 

xii. 6, II, 17, 26 126,197 

xii. 8 302 

xii. 10 357 

xii. II 91 

xii. 15 125 

xii. 16 175 

xiii. 2-6,7-12,13-19 134 

xiii. 13-19 171 

xiv. 1,2 19, 172 

xiv. 3-20 20, 173 

xiv. 21 175 

XV. i-ii 177 

XV. 10, 18 285 

XV. 12-18 179 

XV. 17 113 

xvi. 1-8 105 

xvi. 3,9 107 

xvi. 4-8 108 

xvi. 7 102 

xvi. 13-15 log 

XVI. 18 136,346 

xvii. 2-5 134 

xvii. 2-7 183 

xvii. 9 113 

xvii. 14 141,143 

xvii. 9, 18 116 

xviii. 2 20, 124 

xviii. 3,4 124,127 

xviii. 9-14 1S4 

xviii. 15-19 144 



Deuteronomy. 

xix. 1-13 254 

xix. 14 146 

xix. 16, 21 188 

xix. 17 113 

xix. 19 191 

XX. 1-9 147 

XX. 9,16-18 19 

XX. 10-14,15,19,20 148 

XX. 10-15 171 

XX. 18 172 

xxi. 1-9, 10-14, 18 149 f. 

xxi. 15-17 189 

xxi. 17 190 

xxii. 1-4 190 

xxii. 5, g-ii 191 

xxii. 8, 13-21 151 

xxii. 12 192 

xxii. 18 157 

xxii. 19, 29 156 

xxiii. I 193 

xxiii. 2-9 153 

xxiii. 10-15 194 

xxiii. 16, 17 155 

xxiii. 18 197 

xxiii. 22, 23 196 

xxiv. 1-4 43, 156 

xxiv. 9, 19-22 199 

xxiv. 14, 15 182 

xxv. 1-3 152,157 

XXV. 4 191 

xxv. 5-10, II, 12, 17-19 157 f. 

XXV. 17-19 19 

xxvi. 5 282 

xxvi. 12 127 

xxvii.-xxx 255 

xxvii. 20-23 194 

xxviii 360 

xxix. 3-5 263 

xxx. 6, 16 382 

xxxi. . . 255 

xxxi. 9, 24 260 

xxxi. 9 47,51 

xxxii. 250 

xxxii. 4, 37, 41 368 

xxxii.-xxxiii 256 

xxxiii. 5 47 

xxxiii. 8 212 

xxxiv 256 

xxxiv. 8 254 

Joshua. 

iii. 3 116 

iii- 9-17 124 

iv. 19 254 

V. 2 360 

viii. 29 151 

viii. 36 116 

X. 13 350 

xiv. 4 130 

xvii. 3 189 

xxi. 8 349 

xxi. 13,21,27 186 

xxii. 3 270 

xxii. 16 354 

xxiii. 9 270 

xxiv. 14 360 

xxiv. 26 350 

xxx. 8 51 



Indexes. 



479 



Judges. 

i- 2 ••*..•• 347 

11. 1-3 346 

ii. 2 169 

ii. 10, 12 325 

iii- 13 159 

vi. 19 loi 

viii. 22, 23 143, 346 

viii. 24-27 338 

xi. II 354 

xi. 30 196,235 

xiv. 3 347 

xvii. 4 338 

xvii. 5, 12 354 

xvii. 7 118 

xix.-xxi 325 

xix. 1,2 346 

xix. 18 351 

XX. I 354 

XX. 20 217 

XX. 26 226 

XX. 27 354 

XXI. 16, 22 346 

1 Samuel. 

i. II 235,351 

i. 24 loi 

ii. 14, 19, etc 351 

ii. 10 342 

ii. 12-26 124 

ii. 13 102 

ii. 15, 28 351 

iii. 3 • 118 

iv. 3 354 

iv. 19-22 356 

vii. 3 347 

vii. 6 221 

viii. I ff. 142 

viii. 3 349 

viii. 5 143 

viii. 15 153 

X. 3 102 

X. 25 350 

XIV. 3 352 

XIV. 47 154 

XIV. 48 19, 160 

XV. 2 •19 

XV. 22 310, 382 

XV. 23 185,357 

XV. 26, 35 326 

xvi. 7 390 

xvii. 26, 45 327 

xix. 19 364 

XX. 5, 26 348 

xxi. 2 327 

xxii. 20 t 351 

2 Samuel. 

i. 17 • • • • 364 

i. 18 350 

ii. 8 336 

vj: 13 115 

vii. 22-24 348 

xi. 14 350 

xn. 7 337 

XV. 7-9 357 

XV. 25 226 

xxiii. I 364 

xxiv. 2^ 102 



1 Kings. 

i- 7-9 357 

H- 3 347 

II. 26 349 

iii. 2 358 

iii- 6 354 

III. 16-28 225 

vi. 20, 21 226 

vii. 17 192 

vii. 49 227 

viii. 2 349 

viii. 6 115 

viii. 42 f. 342 

viii. 64 103 

viii. 65 319 

viii. 66 . 109 

xi. 5 171 

XI. 7 338 

XI. 41 350 

xii. 25 169 

xii. 28 339 

xiv. 24 . 195 

xiv. 25 279 

XV. 14 359 

xviii. 18 337 

xxii. 9 X53 

2 Kings. 

iii. 20 349 

iii. 27 171 

iv. 23 350 

V;. 5 350 

viii. 6 153 

viii. 7-15 343 

xii. 17 234 

xvii. 6 329 

xvii. 34-37 350 

X; 31 349 

xi. 12 143 

xii. 3, 4 328 

xii. 16 . * 100 

xii. 17 234 

xiv. 6 347 

xvi. 3 313 

XVI. 4 359 

xvii. 6 329 

xvii. 16 139 

xvii. 27 f. 52 

xviii. 22 359 

xix. 9 279 

xxi. 3 fif. . 139 

xxi. 8 347 

xxiu. 7 195 

xxiii. 10 238 

xxiii. 20 135 

XXV. 18 120 

1 Chronicles. 

iv. 7, 8, 19 227 

iv. 43 ■< . 160 

V. 23 268 

vi. 7-13 _ • • •. 118 

xvi., xviii., xxvii. ......... 121 

xxiii. 5 365 

xxix. 14 , 230 

2 Chronicles. 

ii. 6 211 

iv. 8, 19 227 

V- 4, 5, 7 "5 



480 The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 



2 Chronicles. 
vii. 7-9 . . . 



TU. 9 . . . 

viii. 13 . . 

viii. 14 . . 

xiv. 3-5 . 

XIV. 12 . . 

xxiii. 18 . 
XXX. 27 - . 
xxxi. 13 . 
xxxii. 12 . 
xxxiii. 3 fif. 
xxxiv. 13 . 
XXXV. 13 . 

Ezra. 
»- 55, 58 
ii. 63 . . 
iii. 10 . 
iii. 12, 13 
vii. 11-26 
ix. 12 . 

Nehemiah. 
i. 4 . . 
V. 3 . . 
vii. 65 . 
X; 32, 33 

XI. II . 

xii. 35 • 
xu. 44 . 
xiii. 28, 29 

Job. 

i. 5 102,229 

xxii. 27 235 

xxxi. 26-28 339 

xxxvi. 14 T95 

xlii. 8 I02 



Psalms. 



». 3 
iii. 4 
iv. . 



vu. 7 

vii. 10 .... 
vii. II .... 
vii. 13 .... 
ix. 6, 13, 18, 20 
X. 1,4 .... 



319 
109 
no 

121 

359 
3«9 
114 
114 
120 
280 

139 
121 
102 



229 
235 
216 



• 354 
. 198 
. 212 
. 129 
. 120 
. 220 
. 121 
. 219 



. . 396 
369, 372 
. .387 



XI. 4 . 
XI. 7 . 

XIV. 2 

xiv. 7 

XV. I, 2 
XV. 4, 5 



. . . 402 

• • -370 
. . .390 
. . .403 
. . .366 
... 370 
. . .387 

• • • 399 
... 403 
... 370 
... 387 

• 353.387 



372 

xvi. 2-4 100,384 

xvi. 3 392 

405 

377 



xvi. 8, II, 14, IS 
xviii. 6 . . . . 
xviii. 23 . . . 
xix. 9 .... 
xix. 13 ... . 

XX. 6 

xxii. 4 . . . . 



XXII. 29 
xxiii. 
xxiv. . , 



373 
327 
397 
369 
390 
392 
341 
405 
377 



Psalms. 
xxiv. 3 399 

XXV. 14 371 

xxvi. 9 400 

xxviii. 3 400 

xxix. 6> 268 

xxix. 21 391 

xxxi. 7 391 

xxxiii. 6 . • 371 

XXXV. 1,2 368 

xj 99 f-, 381 

X:.7 234 

xlu. I 404 

xlii. 4, II 391 

} 383 

j- 5 371 

•: 13 312 

li., vi., xxxviii 378 

Iv. 4 368 

Iv. 22 403 

Ivi. 13 374 

Ixvm. 15, 17 387 

Ixxi. 22 390 

Ixxii. 20 366 

Ixxviii. 58-62 356 

Ixxxvi. 8-11 .... 389 

cxxii. 5 386 

cxxxvii. 7 19, 154 

Proverbs. 

vii. 17 215 

xviii. II 169 

xix. 18 150 

XX. 25 235 

xxi. 3 382 

xxi. 27 27 

ECCLESIASTES. 

V. 3-5 23s 

Solomon's Song. 

iv. 8 268 

iv. 14 215 

Isaiah. 

i. 2, 4 304 

i. 11-15 382 

1. 13 100 

"•7 147 

V. 2, 4 304 

vi. 3 309 

xix. 19 312 

xxiii. 18 309 

xxiv. 2 131 

XXX. 33 171 

xxxi. 3 337 

xxxvii. 9 279 

x1. 26 336 

xliv. 6 . . 335 

Ivi. 3 153 

Ivi. 6 309 

Iviii. 3 314 

Iviii. 13 309 

Ixiii. 1-6 19 

Ixvi. 3 312 

Ixvi. 21 114,116 

Jereml\h, 

iv. 4 21 

vi. 19, 20 313 

vi. 20 «... lOQ 



Indexes. 



48: 



Jeremiah. 

vii. 21 383 

vii. 29 19. 173 

vii. 31 171 

ix. 24, 25 309 

ix. 26 21 

xi. 15 309 

xxx._ 13 238 

xxxi. 32 310 

xxxiii. i8-2i 114,116,313 

XXXV 236 

xH. ,5 19 

xlvii. 5 173 

xlviii. 37 173 

xlviii. 47 19 

xlix. 6, 7, 18 155 

|j: 5 19 

hi. ig 227 

lii. 24 . 120 

EZEKIEL. 

viii. 3 192 

xxvii. 5 268 

xl. — xlviii 77 

xl;. 39 234 

xlii. 13 234 

xliv. 29 234 

xlv. 25 .... 109 

xlvi. 14 . loi 

xlvi. 20 234 

HOSEA. 

i- 4 303 

i. 6, 7 302 

ii. 7, 17 306 

iv. 6, 8 300 

v. 7 306 

vi. 6 310,382 

vi; 7 304 

vii. 16 154 

viii. I 304 

viii. 13 154 

ix. 3 238, 309 

xii. 13 27 

xiii. 2 313 

xiii. II 143 

xiv. 1-3 302 

Joel. 

i. 13 299 

ii. 15 302 

iii- 9 154 

iv. 17 302 

iv. 19 299 

v. 4-6 302 

Amos. 

ii- 4 299 

li. 10 27 

iii. 1-3 304 

iii. 9 154 

iv. 6-11 299,304 

V. 4, 5, 21, 22 304 

V. 26 139,170 

vi. 5 365 

vii. 17 238,309 

Jonah. 
i. 16 235 



MiCAH. 

J: I ff 303 

ii. 20 238 

iii. 12 27S 

iv. I, 3 303 

vi. 4 27 

vii. 7 100,313 

vii. 15 .27 

Zephaniah. 
i- 5 171 

Haggai. 
ii. 11-14 314 

Zechariah. 

iii 119,214 

vii. 9 314 

IX. II 30s 

X. 2 185 

Malachi. 

i. 6, 12 210 

i. 8 182 

i. 14 197,235 

ii. 13-16 157 

iii. 1-4 315 

iii. 25 185 

Ecclesiasticus. 

iii. 1-16 150 

xxxiv. 18, 25 385 

XXXV. 1-12 315 

XXXV. I 385 

1. 15 230 

Baruch. 
i. 10 234 

1 Maccabees. 

i. 22 228 

i. 56 364 

iii. 21 • • • 37 

iv. 46 212 

V. 6 170 

vi. 31 154 

2 Maccabees. 

ii. 14 364 

V. 19 37 

X. 4, 36 210 

xii. 37 363 

XV. 29 363 

Matthew. 

viii. 4 42 

XV. 5 197,236 

xxiii. 2 42 

Mark. 

i- 44 42 

vii. 9 197,236 

X; 3-9 42 

xii. 26 43 

xiv. I 109 



48: 



The Pentateuch : Its Origin and Structure. 



Luke. 

V. 14 42 

V. 36, 37 353 

XVI. 29, 31 43 

XX. 37 42 

xxii. I 109 

xxiv. 44 43 

John, 

v... 45-47 43 

vu. 19 42 

viii. 17 183 

viii. 56 341 

xiv. 9 406 

Acts. 

vii. 58 183 

xiii. 21 143 

XV. 20, 29 175 

xxi. 25 175 

Romans. 
xi. 12 38 



1 Corinthians. 

ix. 4, 9 214 

2 Corinthians. 

xii. 14 311 

Philippians. 

i. 21 402 

I Timothy. 

i. 9 285 

V. 18 214 

Hebrews. 

iii. 4 409 

vii. 16 218 

ix. 4 226 

I John. 

iii. I 402 

iv. 16 285 



(2) General Index. 



Aben Ezra 4, 46 

Altar of incense 226 

Amalek, Destruction of . 158 

Argument from peculiar use of divine 

names 55 

Assyrian and Egypt, discoveries. 82, 248/. 
Assyria not recognized in Deut. . . i^of. 

Astruc 4, 55 

Atonement, Day of 111,242 

Bearing of Israel's sojourn in Egypt. 77 

Benny 157 

Bertheau . • 207 

Bickell 82 

" Beyond Jordan " 270 

Blasphemy, Law against 209 

Bleek 42,62,162,251,257 

Bbhl 296 

Bohmer 71 

Bredenkamp 13, 92, 312 

Briggs 42 

Burnt-offering, The 229 

Carlstadt 4, i,-]f. 

Carlyle 305 

Character of earlier Pent, criticism . 51 

Chronicler, Aim of 319 

Chronicles, Genuineness of ... . 318/". 

Missing links in 320 

Cities of Refuge 185/. 

Cleanliness in camp 194 

Code of Priests 7> 3o> 34^- 

Codes of Pentateuch 86 

Colenso ^^f. 

Conder 324 

"Congregation" 3o> 153 

Consecration of Priests 213 

Criticism, The, Its inadequate rejoin- 
ders 21 

The Literature of 5 



Criticism, The, Its logical consequen- 
ces 6, 8, 76 

The Inconclusiveness of its 

reasoning . 16, 29^., 81 

The False principles of ... . 10 

Critics no longer free 81 

Curtiss 42, 95 

Delitzsch, Franz. 20, 26, 30, 31, 63, 
68y., 89, 92, 97, 103, 112, 120, 122, 
243, 255, 257, 311, 321, 343, 349, 370, 
^ ,. ^ . . 374, 37^, 382, 389, 401 

Delitzsch, Fnednch 2 

Destruction of Canaanitish cities . . 171 
Deuteronomy, Legislation of ... • 18 

No evidence of a late origin in, 

263if.,274^ 

Moses claimed for its author . 258^. 

Book of. Importance in the criti- 
cism 132 

Bearing of its code 164^". 

Ethical plane on which it moves, 

166/., 283/ 

Diversity of views concerning its 

origin and structure .... 250^! 

Unity of -^hoff- 

Language and style of 256 

Development not in straight lines . . 13 

De Wette 28,52,62,132, 252 

Diestel 43 

Dfficulties in traditional view .... 78 
Dillmann. 68, 81, 92, 107, 170, 199, 210, 

257, 29s 

Disobedient son. Law for 150/^ 

Divisions among the critics .... 66_^. 

Divorce, Law of 156^". 

Documents: Age determined how? . 10 

in Pent 78 

Duhm 73, 298, 334 

Dwinell 330 



Indexes. 



483 



Ebers« 140 

Egyptian coloring in Deuteronomy, ■2.-]'i,f. 

Eichhorn 55/. 

Elohistic history, Character of ... . 31 

Emerson 245 

Encyclopaedia Britan 6, 34 

Essays and reviews 6 

Eunuchs, Law for 153 

Ewald 62, 100, 140, 251 

Example of repetition of a law .... 170 

Feasts, The, Wellhausen's theory of. 

I 04-1 12 
Feast of New Moon no 

of Trumpets no 

of the Passover losy. 

Female captives. Law for 150 

Fiction versus fact 32 

First day of seventh month 239 

Formula of Pent, analysis 85 

Fox, Caroline . 27 

Frederick XL, Question of 38 

Fugitive Slaves, Law for 155 

Fundamental ideas of the prophets . 334^. 

Geiice 207 

George 4 

Gleaning 199 

Gnostics, Objection of 45 

Graf 4,5, Tzf., 132 

Gramberg 62 

Green .... 27, 57, 78, 143, 296, 356, 381 

Hamburger 112, 185, 215 

Hartmann . 42, 47, 61 

Hasse 61 

Hebrews, Epistle to 15 

Herodotus 215, 268 

Hexateuch, Composition of (^f. 

High-priest 118, 216 

Historical Books, Ethical standard of. 
,^. . 322^. 

Hitzig . 100, 376y. 

Hobbes 49 

Hofimann 88, 92, 99, 107, 128 

Homer, Text of 17 

Hommel 139, 151, 157, 249 

Hostile cities of Canaan, Law for . i48_/". 

Ignatius quoted 15 

llgen 60 

I srael and Egypt 206 

Israel and Assyria 207 

Jehovist document: importance of its 

contents 80 

Jerusalem, His letters 55 

Jewish people, History of 37 

Josephus 42, 109, 122, 243 

Josiah, Reforms of 23 

Joshua, The Book of 346 

Judges and officers, Appointment of. 

Julian, His objections 45 

Kamphausen 192, 222 

Kayser 75, 219 

Keil 71, 109 

Kindness to animals. Law concerning. 191 
King, Law of the 141^- 



Kittel 33,90 

Kleinert 143, 151, 160, 258 

Knobel 71 

Kuenen 5. 7i» 75> 334» 337 

Kurtz C2S, 269 

Lagarde 18 

Landmarks, Law concerning . . . 146/". 
Law concerning food as clean and un- 
clean 173 

concerning animals eaten . . . . 175 

for protection of human life . . 151 

concerning destruction of idols . 168 

Laws, Case of amendment of ... . 190 

Laws, Their execution 12 

Le Clerc 52 

Lenormant 82 

Leprosy, Law concerning 198 

Levirate marriage 157 

Levitical cities 130 

Levitical legislation: its connection 

with Deut 19 

Luther 12 

Lyon 45 

Magical arts 184 

Man-stealing 198 

Marti n, no, 292 

Masius 48 

Meal and drink offerings 230 

Merx 30, 42 

Michaelis 54 

Mixing diverse things 191 

Moloch, Law for 169 

Mosaic claims: Alternative if dis- 
puted 162 

Moses, Blessing of . ^ 272 

Farewell of 286 

largely ignored 33, 38 

" Miracle " of his character and 

life 13 

with the earlier critics 53 

fitted for the work imputed to 

him 77 

Mourning-customs forbidden .... 172 

Movers 251 

Murray 10 

Naville 38 

Nazarines, Objections of 45 

Nazarlte, Law for 236 

" Nethenim " and "nelhunim" . . . 121 
New Testament, Witness of . . . 14, 42 

Noldeke 67, 94 

Nowack 304 

Offerings, Wellhausen's theory of, 

94-104 

Oil, The anointing 215 

Old Test, study. Value of i/. 

Old Test, writers: their character 

impugned 15 

Omniscience claimed by critics ... 22 
Oppression of poor forbidden .... 182 

Parvish 250 

Peace-offerings 231 

Pentateuch, Doctrmal teaching of . . 78 

Analysis ■ . . 85 

Criticism, Opening period of . . 54 



484 TJie Pentateuch : 



Its Origin and Stnictwe. 



Perowne 401 

Petitio principii 80 

Peyrere • . 49 

Philo . . . 42 

Place of worship, Wellhausen's theory 

of 87-94 

Pledges, Law concerning 197 

Popper 72 

Prepossessions 45 

Priests, Requirements of . . . .215, 218 

Prerogatives of 219 

and Levites, Maintenance of, 123-129 

Code of; its contents 83/". 

Property of Israelitish brethren . . 190 
Prophets. Opinion of critics concern- 
ing them 293/". 

Their use of hyperbole 313 

Their attitude respecting a cen- 
tral sanctuary 302/". 

Their teaching in general . . . 26J?". 

Their recognition of a covenant. 304 

Their earnest convictions . . . 307 

Not to be classed as same office 

with the priests 000 

Law concerning their office . 144/"- 

Lnpressions made upon them by 

the Law 298^. 

Prostitution, Law concerning .... 194 

Protevangelium ... 9 

Purification in case of murder .... 149 

at childbirth 237 

by ashes of a red heifer .... 238 

Psalms. Principles adopted in dis- 
cussing them 366 

Their verbal reminiscences of the 

Pent 366/ 

Their recognition of Pent, history, 

369/ 
Psalms, The, and the Pent, legislation. 

23/, 372 

and the leading principles of the 

Israelite religion 386_/! 

Psalms, The. Their personal element 

.. 396/ 

They do not disparage sacrifice, 380/. 

Punishment by flogging 157 

for immodesty 158 

of Heb. Idolaters 138 

Rainy 46 

Ranke 225 

Rawlinson . . . -139, 140, 161, 206, 208, 

2IO, 252 

Reaction among German critics begun. 11 

Redactor 7, 66, 74, 81 

Reforms In Israel 23 

Release of Heb. servants ...... 178 

Religion of Israel: its consummation. 10 

Reuss 72 

Revelation as supernatural 13 

RIehm . 30, 74, 92, 109, 130, 137, 139, 143, 
152, 158, 174, 213, 222/., 339 

Rights of inheritance 189 

Rimarius 54 

Ryssel 79 

Sar^f.anism 138/ 

Sabbath, The no 

Sabbatic year 177 

Sacred vestments, The 2ioy". 

Sacrifices to be faultless 181 



Samaritan Pentateuch ^. 82 

Sayce 208, 249 

Scheme of the criticism .... 29o_/., 334 

Schrader 67, 139, 249, 268 

Second Elohist 66 

Seduction to Idolatry 134/! 

Sepharvaim 2 

Siegfried 42 

Sime 88,143,275 

Sin-offering, The 232 

Sins against chastity 193 

Sixteen reasons against the Criticism . 77^. 

Smend 30, 312, 316 

Smith, R. P 39 

Smith, W. R. . 4, 10, 94, 142, 223, 294, 
296, 3oo_/. 

Spinoza 4,50 

Stade 317, 334 

Stahelin 62 

Stebhins 12 

Strack 42, 67, 92, 322 

Style of interpretation employed . . 18 

Style of Pent, writers 79 

Subjectivity of the criticism \f. 

Sunday-School Times 345 

Superficiality of the earlier criticism . 53 
Synagogue, The 36 

Tabernacle, The 22oy. 

Table of shew-bread • . 227 

Taylor, Isaac . . . 167, 204, 245, 3^8, 404 
Testimony of New Test, writers: its 

bearing 44 

Thenius 100, 143 

Theory of Documents SSff- 

of Graf and Wellhausen . . . 72^ 

of Supplements 62^^. 

Time of composition of the Pent. . . 79 
Traces of Pent, in the historical books. 

345if: 

Trespass-offering, The 233 

Tuch 42, 62 

Uncertainty of results 81 

Unchastity, Charge of 151 

Urim and Thummim 212 

Usury, Law touching . ....... 195 

Van Dale 52 

Vater 61 

Vatke 4 

Vigouroux 82 

Vitringa 56 

Volck 273 

Vows 196, 234 

Warrington 161 

Watson 27, 122, 308, 361 

Watts 27 

Weddell 80 

Weights and measures. Law concerning 200 

Wellhausen . 5, 11, 86, 113, 118/, 128/., 

223, 228, 2897!, 294, 300, 3i8_^., 332 

Wilson 161, 249 

Witness, Bearing false 188 

Witnesses in capital cases 183 

Witsius 52 

Wolfenbiittel Fragments 54 

Zeitgeist 71 

Zockler 17 



THE APOCRYPHA OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WITH 
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONS, A REVISED TRANSLA- 
TION, AND NOTES CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY. 
By Prof. EDWIN C. BISSELL, D.D. 
1 Vol. Koyal 8vo. S5.00. 

This book forms a part (vol. xv.) of the American edition of Lange's 
Commentary on the Old Testament. It is an original work and was secured 
by the American editor for this edition inasmuch as the German edition 
contained no commentary on the Apocrypha. It has received the highest 
recognition from competent authorities both in this country and in Europe. 

In addition to favorable mention by Schurer, Dehtzsch, Nestle, and 
other eminent German scholars, the following is extracted from a very 
friendly notice inserted by Dr. Hermann Strack, of Berlin, in the Theolo- 
gisches Lit eratur Matt (Leipzig, October 20, 1882) : " To the EngHsh transla- 
tion of J. P. Lange's Theoiogisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk, issued under the 
direction of Ph. Schaff, Dr. Edwin Cone Bissell has added a supplementary 
volume which we warmly recommend (dringend empfehlen) to all who 
have to employ themselves especially \^dth the Apocrypha; since Germany, 
unfortunately, has no new work to offer in which about all the material 
required for the study of the Apocrypha has been brought together, at once 
Mdth so much care, and in a form so convenient to use." 

The Presbyterian Review (1881, p. 408 ff.) says: "The result of his 
[Dr. Bissell's] labors in the work before us is a welcome accession to ovir 
theological literature. Such a work has long been a special desideratum in 
the Enghsh language." It " bears evidence throughout of wide and dili- 
gent research, of minute acquaintance with the literature of the subject, and 
of conscientious treatment." 

Professor Broadus, in the Baptist Review (1881, p. 123), in the course 
of a lengthy review of the work says : " He [the author] gives evidence 
of having thoroughly studied his subject in all its departments. A com- 
parison of his introductions with those of Arnald (usually printed with 
the commentaries of Patrick, Lowth, and Whitby), the only preceding 
Enghsh commentary on the Apocrypha, would show marvelous progress 
in scholarship on these subjects since 1744. It may be proper to say 
that, having long studied and taught the Old Testament Apocrypha as 
helps to the New Testament, with a constant use of the leading German 
writers, we have in a careful examination of Dr. BisseU's work found much 
to admire in his general and special introductions, his greatly improved 
translation, and his critical, exegetical, and historical notes, and have lighted 
upon very little to which we could take serious exception. We hope the 
work will be at once procured and carefully studied by all our more intelli- 
gent ministers and in not a few cultivated families." 



For sale by all booksellers, or sent, postpaid, by the publishers, 

CHARLES SCRIBSER'S SONS, 713 & 745 Broadway, Hew Tort 








^^^■^>.. 



:yr,' ,h^ '% 



.0 o 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proc( 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologi 

A WORLD LEAOBA IN PAPER PRESERVAT 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Onve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



^ -t: 







\ 













* 7^ 



, X -^ .^'^ 






'%^^'^' 



iM ^n:^- 






^!^P^^ y "^ 




.- ,,^^'>c.. 












.H -r. 



w \y 









%%^- 



5^. 3 



V^ 



A^ 



.V ^- 






iilllliil 






§m 



u^<<Mm§ 



. ,m 

■ mr 



m 



'fM 



mm 



iilliiji 
III 



l|! 



!i 



i 



iiiiiifllli! 
iiii i 



I 



!!i ' 



iii Iiii! 
jiiP,iii!iiil|i|!|i 

Ilii 



H 




mmmiy' 



f 



^IWllM 



'"'i li'i 



M 



m 



i 



iliU<»JII{ 



m 
iiiiiiifpiijiiiili 



mw 



11 1 1 



